Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS (STANDING ORDERS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (A) be made, that the Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (B) be repealed, and that the new Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (C) be made:

SCHEDULE (A)—AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS

Standing Order 3, leave out lines 1 to 6.

Line 11, leave out "in," and insert "of."

Line 13, leave out "in this House."

Line 16, leave out "the said Standing Orders," and insert "Standing Orders 4 to 68."

Line 22, leave out "respect," and insert "reference."

Standing Order 4, line 35, leave out "paragraph," and insert "sub-paragraph."

Standing Order 13, line 11, leave out "the."

Line 11, leave out "marked."

Standing Order 22, line 30, leave out from "of," to end of Order, and insert "Standing Orders 126, 171 and 209."

Standing Order 27, line 63, leave out "Town and Country," and insert "Local Government and."

Standing Order 28, lines 28 and 29, leave out "Health, the Ministry of Town and Country," and insert "Local Government and."

Standing Order 29, line 13, leave out "Town and Country," and insert "Local Government and."

Standing Order 30, line 8, leave out "Town and Country," and insert "Local Government and."

Standing Order 31, line 4, after "of," insert "so much of."

Line 5, after "any)," insert "as relates to the said tidal lands."

Standing Order 38, line 5, leave out from "November," to "and," in line 7.

Leave out lines 13 to 20.

Standing Order 39, line 11, leave out "Town and Country," and insert "Local Government and."

Standing Order 45, line 10, leave out "the."

Line 10, leave out "marked."

Standing Order 46, line 7, leave out "Health," and insert "Local Government and Planning."

Standing Order 60, line 4, leave out "two days," and insert "the second day."

Line 5, leave out "is," and insert "has been."

Line 9, leave out "introduced," and insert "presented."

Standing Order 61, line 8, after "that." insert "not less than."

Line 8, leave out from "weeks," to end of line 9, and insert "before the Bill was brought from the House of Lords."

Line 28, leave out "that."

Line 44, leave out "the."

Line 45, leave out "marked."

Standing Order 62, line 3, after "shall," insert "after it has been read a second time."

Lines 3 and 4, leave out "after the second reading thereof."

Line 5, leave out from "report," to end of line 7, and insert "whether the following requirements have or have not been complied with."

Line 8, leave out "introduced," and insert "presented."

Line 9, leave out "introduced in," and insert "presented to."

Line 94, leave out from "is," to "after," in line 96, and insert "presented, or intended to be presented."

Standing Order 63, line 6, after "shall," insert "after it has been read a second time."

Line 7, leave out "after the second reading thereof."

Leave out lines 9 and 10, and insert "whether the following requirements have or have not been complied with."

Line 13, leave out "introduced," and insert "presented."

Line 14, leave out "introduced in," and insert "presented to."

Line 20, leave out "introduced," and insert "presented."

Line 21, leave out "introduced in," and insert "presented to."

Standing Order 64, line 9, after "shall," insert "after it has been read a second time."

Lines 9 and 10, leave out "after the second reading thereof."

Line 14, leave out "Standing."

Leave out lines 17 to 21.

Line 22, leave out "also."

Line 22, leave out "Standing."

Line 36, leave out "Standing."

Standing Order 65, line 22, leave out from "report," to "the." in line 23, and insert "whether."

Line 24, at end, insert "have or have not been complied with."

Line 112, leave out "introduced," and insert "presented."

Lines 112 and 113, leave out "introduced into," and insert "presented to."

Standing Order 66, line 20, leave out from "report," to "the," in line 21, and insert "whether."

Line 22, at end, insert "have or have not been complied with."

Line 66, leave out "introduced," and insert "presented."

Lines 66 and 67, leave out into," and insert "presented to

Standing Order 67, line 19, leave out "Standing."

Line 21, leave out "Standing."

Leave out lines 28 to 33.

Line 34, leave out "also."

Line 34, leave out "Standing."

Line 47, leave out "Standing."

Standing Order 68, line 10, leave out "to this House," and insert "from the House of Lords."

Standing Order 70, line 2, leave out from "been," to "shall," in line 4, and insert "presented on or before the twenty-seventh day of November."

Line 6, leave out "provided that," and insert "or."

Line 7, leave out from "Sunday," to end of Order, and add "on the first Monday following that day."

Standing Order 71, line 4, leave out "Petitions for Bills," and insert "each Petition for a Bill."

Standing Order 72, line 1, at beginning, insert—
Every petition for a Private Bill other than a petition for a certified Bill or a Bill to which Standing Order 220 applies shall stand referred to the Examiners and." Line 1, leave out from "shall," to "and," in line 2, and insert "inquire whether Standing Orders 4 to 59, so far as applicable, have been complied with.

Standing Order 73, leave out from beginning, to "shall." in line 11, and insert "A Petition for additional provision in a Private Bill."

Line 12, leave out "be," and insert "stand."

Standing Order 74, line 2, leave out "introduced," and insert "presented."

Line 5, leave out "having," and insert "they have."

Standing Order 75, line 1, at beginning. Insert—
Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this Order.

Line 3, leave out "and to tender evidence." Line 15, leave out "introduced," and insert "presented."

Line 21, at end, insert—
(2) No party shall be heard by the Examiner unless his memorial has been deposited in the Private Bill Office—

(a) in the case of a Petition for a Bill deposited in that Office on or before the twenty-seventh day of November, on or before the seventeenth day of December;

(b) in the case of a Petition for a Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office after the twenty-seventh day of November, not later than the fourth day before the day appointed for the examination of the petition or, if the House is not sitting on that day, then on or before the next day on which the House sits;
(c) in the case of a petition for additional provision in a Private Bill, a Bill brought from the House of Lords or a Bill presented by leave of this House in lieu of another Bill which has been withdrawn, before noon on the day preceding the day appointed for the examination of the petition or Bill as the case may be.

(3) With each memorial there shall be deposited two copies thereof for the use of the Examiners."

Standing Order 76, line 8, leave out "and to tender evidence."

Standing Order 79, line 6, leave out from "with," to end of Order.

Standing Order 81, lines I and 2, leave out "or the Counsel to Mr. Speaker."

Line 9, at end, add—
Provided that if the Chairman of Ways and Means is unable to act or the office of Chairman of Ways and Means is vacant, the Counsel to Mr. Speaker shall act in his stead for the purposes of this Order.

Standing Order 82, line 11, leave out "endorsed," and insert "examined."

Standing Order 87, line 1, leave out "bring up," and insert "offer."

Standing Order 88, line 8, leave out from "day," to end of Order and add "before that on which it is proposed to consider the Lords Amendments."

Standing Order 103, line 6, leave out from "and," to "by," in line 8, and insert "EightMembers nominated."

Standing Order 109, line 4, leave out "which Committee," and insert "whom."

Line 6, leave out from "Bill," to "shall," in line 7, and insert "on committal."

Line 8, leave out "of Selection."

Standing Order 110, line 6, leave out from "Votes," to end of Order.

Standing Order 111, line 2, leave out from "refer," to "every," in line 3.

Line 5, leave out from "Bills," to end of Order, and insert "to a Committee of four Members not locally or otherwise interested in the Bill or Bills referred to them, and shall at the same time nominate one of the Members as Chairman.

(2) The Committee of Selection shall refer every Unopposed Bill which stands referred to them to a Committee composed of five Members, namely, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, and three Members selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means from a panel to be appointed by the Committee of Selection at the commencement of every Session.

(3) The Committee of Selection shall not treat any Bill as an Opposed Bill unless a petition against the Bill stands referred to the Committee on the Bill under Standing Order 126 or the Chairman of Ways and Means has informed the House that in his opinion the Bill ought to be treated as an Opposed Bill."

Standing Order 115, line 115, leave out from "signed," to end of Order.

Standing Order 122, line 1, leave out "any such Committee," and insert "a Committee on an opposed Private Bill."

Standing Order 124, line 14, leave out "postpone," and insert "defer."

Line 16, leave out "postponed," and insert "deferred."

Standing Order 126, line 3, leave out from beginning, to end of line 9, and insert—
(a) every petition against the Bill presented on or before the thirtieth day of January or, in the case of—

(i) a bill brought from the House of Lords, or
(ii) a bill to which Standing Order 220 applies, or
(iii) a certified bill, or
(iv) a bill in the case of the petition for which compliance with the Standing Orders has been dispensed with, or
(v) A bill in respect of the petition for which the Examiner has made a special report, or
(vi) a bill the examination of the petition for which has been adjourned until after the twentieth day of January

on or before the tenth day after the first reading of the bill or, if the House is not sitting on that day, on or before the next day on which the House sits, and.

Line 13, leave out "may have," and insert "has."

Standing Order 127, line 7, leave out "and to tender evidence."

Line 13, leave out "and to tender evidence."

Line 14, leave out from beginning, to end of Order, and add—
(3) A Petitioner shall not be heard before the Committee on- an Opposed Private Bill unless his Petition has been prepared and signed in strict conformity with the rules and orders of the House:
Provided that a Petition shall not be deemed to have been prepared otherwise than in conformity with the said rules and orders by reason only that it has not been written by hand.

Standing Order 134, line 4, leave out "and to tender evidence."

Standing Order 136, line 3, leave out "hear," and insert "receive."

Line 4, leave out "tendered by," and insert "adduced by or on behalf of."

Standing Order 138, line 1, leave out "each Committee," and insert "a Committee on a Private Bill."

Standing Order 139, line 1, after "Committee," insert "on a Private Bill."

Line 2, leave out from "with," to end of Order, and add "Standing Orders 4 to 68."

Standing Order 140, line 3, leave out "upon," and insert "on."

Standing Order 141, line 1, leave out "the Committee." and insert "a Committee on a Private Bill."

Standing Order 142, line 1, leave out "the Committee shall," and insert "a Committee on a Private Bill shall, when reporting the Bill."

Line 2, leave out "that," and insert "whether."

Line 3, leave out from "been," to "found," in line 6.

Line 6, at end, add "and where any alteration has been made in the preamble, he shall report such alteration, together with the grounds of making it."

Standing Order 144, line 2, leave out from "by," to "and," in line 3, and insert "or under the authority of any Minister of the Crown."

Line 8, after "department," insert "in charge of the Minister."

Line 8, leave out "any."

Line 12, at end, add—
In this Order the expression 'Minister of the Crown' means the holder of an office in His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and includes the Treasury, the Admiralty and the Board of Trade.
For the purposes of this Order a report shall be deemed to have been presented to the House if copies thereof are deposited in the Private Bill Office.

Standing Order 146, line 6, leave out "Ministry," and insert "Minister."

Line 9, after "Ministry," insert "of Transport."

Standing Order 147, line 8, leave out "Ministry," and insert "Minister."

Line 11, after "Ministry." insert "of Transport."

Standing Order 154, line 13, leave out "Ministry," and insert "Minister."

Line 28, leave out "Ministry," and insert "Minister."

Standing Order 155, line 5, leave out "Ministry of Health," and insert "Minister of Local Government and Planning or."

Line 6, leave out "Ministry," and insert "Minister."

Line 6, leave out "or the Electricity Commissioners."

Line 11, leave out "Ministry or Commissioners," and insert "Minister."

Line 12, leave out "as introduced into Parliament."

Line 13, leave out "which," and insert whom."

Standing Order 156, lines 38 and 39, leave out "Public Department," and insert "Minister of the Crown."

Standing Order 156B, line 1, after "a," insert "Private."

Line 20, leave out "on behalf of," and insert "by or under the authority of."

Line 21, leave out "Health," and insert "Local Government and Planning."

Standing Order 166, line 5, at end, add "and shall be ordered to be read a second time."

Standing Order 167, line 7, leave out "this," and insert "the."

Standing Order 170, line 1, leave out "nor more than seven."

Line 2, at end, insert "and second."

Line 3, leave out from "Bill," to end of Order.

Standing Order 171, line 3, leave out "this,' and insert "the."

Standing Order 173, line 1, leave out "or Memorialist."

Line 2, leave out "or Memorial."

Line 5, leave out "or Memorial."

Line 6, leave out "or Memorial."

Line 8, leave out "or Memorial."

Line 9, leave out "or Memorial."

Standing Order 175, line 6, leave out from "been," to "Petition," and insert "inserted except upon."

Standing Order 178, line 2, leave out from "Committee," to "shall," in line 7.

Line 9, leave out from beginning, to "it," in line 10.

Line 11, at end, insert "unless the Committee have reported that the allegations of the Bill have not been proved or that the parties promoting the Bill have stated that it is not their intention to proceed therewith."

Standing Order 179, line 11, leave out "165," and insert "163."

Standing Order 182, line 2, leave out "in the House."

Line 12, leave out "there shall be."

Line 13, after "proceeding," insert "shall be had."

Standing Order 183, line 1, after "where," insert "the promoters intend to offer any clause or to propose."

Line 1, leave out from "amendment," to "on," in line 2.

Line 5, after "the," insert "Clause or."

Lines 5 and 6, leave out "or new clause."

Standing Order 185, line 14, leave out "Where," and insert "When the promoters intend to propose."

Line 15, leave out "are proposed."

Line 16, leave out "offered," and insert "intended to be proposed."

Standing Order 187, line 6, after "given." insert "to the Clerks."

Standing Order 191, line 3, leave out "sent down," and insert "brought."

Standing Order 196, line 2, after "the," insert "Clerks of the."

Standing Order 198, line 3, after "given," insert "to the Clerks."

Line 7, at end, add—
(2) No such notice shall be given for a day later than the seventh day after that on which the Bill has been read the first time except in the case of a Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords and referred to the Examiners in which case notice for the second reading may be given for any day not later than the seventh day after that on which the Bill has been ordered to he read a second time:
Provided that when the House has resolved to adjourn to a day beyond such seventh day notice for the second reading may be given for the day to which the House has adjourned or the following day.

Standing Order 199, line 10, after "given." insert "to the Clerks."

Line 14, leave out "to," and insert "attending."

Line 17, leave out "postponed," and insert "deferred."

Line 17, leave out "of the postponement." and insert "thereof."

Line 19, leave out "postponement is made," and insert "sitting is deferred."

Standing Order 201, line 4, after "given," insert "to the Clerks."

Standing Order 202, line 2, after "out," insert "the clerk attending the committee shall deliver in to the Private Bill Office."

Line 3, leave out from "Chairman," to end of Order.

Standing Order 204, line 7, after "given." insert "to the Clerks."

Standing Order 205, line 3, after "Bill." insert "to the Clerks."

Standing Order 208, line 1, leave out from beginning, to "in," in line 4, and insert—
Not less than one clear day's notice in writing of the day proposed for taking into consideration the amendments made by the House of Lords to a Private Bill shall he given to the Clerks.

Standing Order 209, line 1, after "given," insert "to the Clerks in."

Standing Order 212, leave out lines 8 to 11.

Line 28, leave out "introduction into," and insert "presentation to."

Leave out lines 31 to 34.

Standing Order 214, line 1, leave out "having," and insert "it has."

Line 10, leave out "78."

Line 12, after "of," insert "Petitions for."

Leave out lines 13 to 19, and insert—
Subject to the following modifications—

(a) Parties shall be entitled to appear and he heard upon a memorial provided that such memorial has been deposited before noon on the day before the day


appointed for the examination of a Confirming Bill together with two copies of the memorial for the use of the Examiners."

Leave out lines 26 to 29.

Standing Order 215, line 1, leave "respect." and insert "relation."

Line 3, leave out "respect," and insert "relation."

Standing Order 216, line 1, leave out from "Bill," to "after," in line 2, and insert "shall be presented to the House."

Standing Order 217, line 1, leave out from "Bill," to "shall," in line 2, and insert "on committal."

Line 5, leave out "proceeding," and insert "proceedings."

Leave out lines 12 to 25, and insert—


"(a) In the case of a bill originating in this House every petition against the bill presented on or before the seventh day after notice is given of the day on which the bill will be examined or, if the House is not sitting on that day, on or before the next day on which the House sits shall stand referred to the Committee on the bill.
(b) The Committee on a confirming bill shall report in respect of each order or certificate to be confirmed by the bill whether the same ought to be confirmed."

Line 29, after "fit," insert "refer the bill to a committee constituted as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order 111 who shall."

Line 33, leave out from "shall," to end of Order, and add "refer the former back to the Committee of Selection."

Standing Order 219, line 2, leave out "in relation,"

Line 4, after "Orders," insert 75A (Withdrawal of Memorials).".

Standing Order 220, leave out lines 15 and 16, and insert—
(2) In relation to any such bill the standing orders relating to private bills shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

Line 17, leave out from "Bill," to "shall," in line 18.

Line 21, leave out from "which," to "whichever," in line 22, and insert "the House sits after Easter."

Line 23, after "of," insert "on or before."

Line 25, leave out "notice of the bill," and insert "the notices required by Standing Orders 4, 10 and 11."

Leave out lines 30 to 44, and insert—
(c) in Standing Order 4 (Contents of Notice) a reference to the last day allowed for depositing the petition for the bill shall be substituted for the reference to the fourth day of December;
(d) a printed copy of the bill shall be deposited at the Treasury on or before the day on which the petition for the bill is deposited in the Private Bill Office instead

of on or before the fourth day of December in the previous year, but it shall not be necessary to deposit copies of the, bill at any of the other offices named in Standing Order 39 (Deposit of Bills at Treasury and other Public Departments, &amp; c.);
(e) the bill shall, as soon as may be after the petition therefor has been deposited in the Private Bill Office, be presented to the House, and after it has been read the first time shall be referred to the Examiners, and the Examiner shall report whether the Standing Orders applicable to the bill have or have not been complied with.

Line 48, leave out "and," and insert "but it shall not be necessary to deposit copies of the Bill at any of the other offices mentioned in Standing Order 180 (Re-deposit of Bill before consideration)."

Line 54, after second "the," insert "petition for the."

Line 57, leave out "with," and insert "at."

Line 58, after "the," insert "day proposed for the."

Standing Order 224, line 6, leave out "of this House."

Line 8, leave out from "Orders," to "are," in line 10, and insert "numbered 4 to 68."

Line 12, at end, insert "and when they have not been complied with, he shall also report to the House the facts upon which his decision is founded and any special circumstances connected with the case."

Line 15, at end, insert—
(3) In the case of a Bill originating in this House the Examiner shall have leave to report to the House of Lords (if that House thinks fit so to order) whether any Standing Orders of that House compliance with which, in the case of a Private Bill, is to be proved before one of the Examiners are applicable to the Bill, and, if applicable, whether or not they have been complied with.

Line 16, leave out "any such," and insert a public."

Line 20, after "shall," insert "if that House thinks fit to give him leave."

Line 24, at end, insert "and when they have not been complied with, he shall also report to the House the facts upon which his decision is founded and any special circumstances connected with the case."

Standing Order 225, line 1, leave out "Orders contained in this chapter," and insert "twelve following Orders."

Line 9, leave out "in the House of Commons."

Line 9, at end, insert "the expression 'Confirmation Bill' means a Bill to confirm an Order issued under the Procedure Act."

Line 12, at end, insert "the expression General Orders' means General Orders made under section 15 of the Procedure Act."

Standing Order 226, line 1, leave out "in," and insert "of."

Line 4, leave out "in this House."

Standing Order 227, line 4, leave out "this," and insert "the."

Standing Order 228A, line 2, leave out "Bills to confirm Provisional Orders issued under the Procedure Act," and insert "Confirmation Bills."

Line 10, leave out "Bills to confirm Provisional Orders issued under the Procedure Act," and insert "Confirmation Bills."

Line 15, leave out "Bills to confirm Provisional Orders issued under the Procedure Act," and insert "Confirmation Bills."

Standing Order 230, line 8, leave out "being," and insert "it has been."

Standing Order 231, line 1, after "A." insert "Petition for a."

Line 1, leave out "conferring," and insert "by which it is proposed to confer."

Line 4, leave out "deposited," and insert "presented."

Standing Order 232, line 11, leave out "in," and insert "at."

Line 13, leave out "in," and insert "at."

Lines 14 and 15, leave out "made in pursuance of the Procedure Act."

Line 21, after "proceedings," insert "had."

Standing Order 233, line 6, leave "Order," and insert "Orders."

Standing Order 236, line 3, leave out "two days," and insert "the second day."

Line 3, leave out "is," and insert "has been."

Standing Order 237, line 1, leave out "Orders contained in this Chapter," and insert "eleven following Orders."

Line 17, leave out "in the House of Commons."

Line 22, leave out "in the House of Commons."

Standing Order 238, line 8, leave out from "the," to end of line 9, and insert "following ten Orders."

Standing Order 243, line 11, leave out "and to tender evidence."

Lines 14 and 15, leave out "and to tender evidence."

Standing Order 244, lines 64 and 65, leave out "and to tender evidence."

Standing Order 245, line 2, after "of," insert "Special Procedure."

Line 2, leave out from "Petitions," to end of Order, and add "and counter-petitions and Standing Order 75A shall apply to the withdrawal of memorials objecting to special procedure petitions."

Standing Order 248A, line 4, leave out introduced," and insert "presented."

Appendix (A), page 246, line 13, after "deposited," insert "for public inspection."

SCHEDULE (B)—REPEAL OF STANDING ORDERS

Standing Order 2 (Petition for Bill).

Standing Order 47 (Deposit of statement referring to working class houses).

Standing Order 78 (Report in cases of Bills originating in House of Lords).

Standing Order 83 (Power of Chairman of Ways and Means to authorise deposit of petitions for late Bills).

Standing Order 119 (Committees on opposed Private Bills).

Standing Order 129 (Limit of Time for presenting Petition against Bill).

Standing Order 132 (Committees on unopposed Bills).

Standing Order 143 (Chairman to report Bill to House in all cases).

Standing Order 163 (Presentation of Private Bills).

Standing Order 165 (Deposit of House Copies of Bills).

Standing Order 172 (Printing, & c. of Petitions against Private Bills).

Standing Order 174 (Opposed Business).

Standing Order 176 (Reference of Bills to Examiners after Second Reading).

Standing Order 189 (Extension of time for Petitions, & c., in case of adjournments of House).

Standing Order 195 (Deposit of Memorials).

Standing Order 246 (Orders of Local Government Boundary Commission).

Standing Order 249 (Fees to be charged).

SCHEDULE (C)—NEW STANDING ORDERS

Petitions for Private Bills

2. No private bill shall be presented to the House unless a petition for the same, signed by the parties, being promoters of the bill, or some of them, has been previously presented to the House with a printed copy of the proposed bill annexed.

Deposit of re-housing statement

47.—(1) In the case of a Bill whereby it is proposed—

(a) to authorise the acquisition compulsorily or by agreement of any specified land on which houses are standing; or
(b) to revive, or to extend the time limited for the exercise of, any power for such acquisition;

the Promoters shall, if the total number (so far as can be ascertained) of persons residing in those houses in any area to which this Order applies is thirty or more, deposit in the Private Bill Office and at the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, on or before the eleventh day of December, a statement showing—

(i) the name of that area;
(ii) the total number of those houses in that area: and


(iii) the total number (so far as can be ascertained) of persons residing in them;

Provided that, in the case of a Bill whereby it is proposed to revive, or to extend the time limited for the exercise of, any such powers as aforesaid originally conferred by an Act passed not more than four years before the date of the deposit of the Petition for the Bill, then, if a statement in pursuance of this Order, or of any former Standing Order corresponding thereto, was deposited in respect of the Bill for that Act, the houses included in that statement shall be excluded in determining whether a statement is required under this Order to be deposited in respect of the Bill in question.

(2) The areas to which this Order applies are London and boroughs, urban districts and rural parishes in England and Wales and outside London.

(3) In this Order the expression "house" means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling.

Withdrawal of Memorials

75A. Any Memorialist may withdraw his Memorial, on a requisition to that effect being deposited in the Private Bill Office, signed by him or by the Agent who deposited the Memorial; and where any such Memorial is signed by more than one person, any person signing the Memorial may withdraw from the Memorial by a similar requisition, signed and deposited as aforesaid.

Power of Chairman of Ways and Means to select Chairman of Committees on Unopposed Bills

88A. The Chairman of Ways and Means shall have power to select from the panel appointed under paragraph (2) of Standing Order 111 one Member to act as Chairman at every sitting of a Committee on an Unopposed Bill at which neither the Chairman of Ways and Means nor the Deputy Chairman is present, and at any such sitting the Member so selected shall be a Member of the Committee in addition to the three Members selected under paragraph (2) of Standing Order 111.

Minutes of Evidence

131 A. Whenever copies of the Minutes of the evidence taken before a Committee on an Opposed Private Bill are required they shall be printed at the expense of the parties unless the Committee consider such printing unnecessary.

Committees on Unopposed Bills

132.—(1) The Chairman of Ways and Means shall, when present, be ex officio Chairman of every Committee on an Unopposed Private Bill.

(2) Every such Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker.

Chairman to report Bill to House in all cases

143. The Chairman of the Committee shall 'report the Bill to the House, whether the Committee have or have not gone through the Bill.

Presentation of Petitions for Private Bills

162A.—(1) Every Petition for a Private Bill shall be presented to the House by being deposited in the Private Bill Office.

(2) Except as provided in Standing Order 220 (Regulations as to London County Council (Money) Bills) no such Petition not being a Petition for a Certified Bill shall be received after the twenty-seventh day of November unless it has been endorsed by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Presentation of Private Bills

163.—(1) Where, in respect of a petition for a private bill, the Examiner has reported that the Standing Orders have been complied with the bill shall be presented to the House not earlier than the day before, nor later than the day after the first sitting day in February or, if the report from the Examiner is laid on the Table of the House on or after the first sitting day in February, not later than the day after the report was so laid.

(2) Where, in respect of a petition for a private bill, the Examiner has reported that the standing orders have not been complied with, and the House, on consideration of a report from the Standing Orders Committee that the standing orders ought to be dispensed with, gives leave to the parties to proceed with the bill, the bill shall be presented to the House not later than the following day, or, if such leave was given before the first sitting day in February, not earlier than the day before, nor later than the day after the first sitting day.

(3) Where, in respect of a petition for a private bill, the Examiner has made a special report then—

(a) if the Standing Orders Committee determine that the standing orders have not been complied with and the House, upon consideration of a report from that committee that the standing orders ought to be dispensed with, gives leave to the parties to proceed with the bill, the bill shall be presented to the House within the time limited by paragraph (2) of this Order;
(b) if the Standing Orders Committee report that the standing orders have been complied with, the bill shall be presented to the House not later than the following day or, if the report was made before the first sitting day in February, not earlier than the day before nor later than the day after the first sitting day.

(4) A private bill shall be presented to the House by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and shall be laid by one of the Clerks of that Office on the Table of the House on the next sitting day.

(5) In this Order the expression "sitting day" means a day on which the House sits

Petitions for additional provision

167A.—(1) A Petition for additional provision in a Private Bill shall have annexed thereto a printed copy of the provisions proposed to be added.

(2) No such Petition shall be received unless it has been endorsed by the Chairman of Ways and Means

(3) No such Petition shall be received in the case of a Bill brought from the House of Lords.

Certain matters to be expressed in titles of Private Bills

167B. In the case of any Bill to which, in the event of its originating in this House, Standing Order 64 (Consents of Members of companies, etc., not being promoters, in case of certain Bills originating in this House) will apply, the name of any company, society, association or partnership not being promoters of the Bill, upon which powers are proposed to be conferred or whose constitution is proposed to be altered by the Bill shall be expressed in the title of the Bill.

Copies of Petitions

172. A copy of any Petition deposited in the Private Bill Office praying to be heard against, or otherwise relating to, a Private Bill shall, on application and payment by any party interested, be supplied to him by the agent concerned for the Petition not later than the day following that on which the application and payment is received.

Opposed Business

174.—(1) No opposed business shall be proceeded with at the time of private business.

(2) Any such business may, if the Chairman of Ways and Means so directs, be appointed for consideration at seven of the clock on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.

(3) Business appointed for consideration at seven of the clock shall be arranged in such order as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.

Inspection of Petitions for Private Bills

195. Every Petition for a Private Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office together with the printed copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto, shall be open to the inspection of all parties.

Notice of adjournment of Committees

199A. Notice, in writing, shall be given by the Clerk attending a Committee on a Private Bill to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of the day and hour to which that Committee is adjourned.

Laying of plans, etc.

239A. Whenever any plans, sections, books of reference or maps have been deposited with any public department in relation to any Special Procedure Order by which it is proposed to authorise the compulsory acquisition or user of land or the construction or alteration of works, duplicates of those documents shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the day following that on which the Order is laid before either House of Parliament.

The House will be aware that it has been the practice of my predecessors and myself at the end of most Sessions to move such Amendments to Private Business Standing Orders as the experience of

the past Session or Sessions has shown to be necessary. These Amendments are always liable to be rather extensive, since the Private Business Orders, unlike the Public Business Orders, are intended to be a code in which much of the practice of the House is reduced to a written form.

During the past Session the Private Business Standing Orders have been given an extensive overhaul. Six years have now passed since the Standing Orders were completely revised after a very long interval, and post-war experience of Private Bill legislation has suggested that a considerable number of Amendments—mainly of a drafting nature—might well be made to improve and clarify them.

The result of this review is shown in the Amendments scheduled to the Motion. These Amendments have been discussed and agreed with the Society of Parliamentary Agents, Government Departments, and, where they affect the corresponding orders of another place, with the Lord Chairman of Committees. I have also had the advantage of valuable suggestions from a number of right hon. and hon. Members, to whom I am indebted.

The Amendments thus represent substantially agreed changes in the Standing Orders. They may not perhaps cover everything which some Members may feel might be included; but if any hon. Members wish to make suggestions or to draw my attention to any point on the proposed Amendments I should be happy to discuss them.

The House will perhaps permit me to conclude by mentioning that under my Chairmanship the whole of the Standing Orders of the House, relating to both Public and Private Business, have now been revised and made uniform and the Model Bill and Standard Clauses have been modernised and consolidated. This is not to say that further improvement is not possible, far from it, indeed the process is continuous, but I hope the House may think that a useful and much needed piece of work has been done, and whilst it would be invidious to mention names, I should like to thank all concerned for their co-operation and help.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, "That the Motion be approved."

Hon. Members: Object.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: In view of the objection taken, I think my proper course would be to invite any hon. Members who have objections to be good enough to see me and meanwhile, with your approval, Mr. Speaker, I defer my Motion until tomorrow.

Colonel Ropner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the House is concerned with any amendment to Standing Orders. Therefore, may we have an assurance from either you or the Chairman of Ways and Means—I am not quite sure what the procedure would be—that before these Standing Orders are amended there will be a chance of discussion in the House?

The Chairman of Ways and Means: It is competent for me to put the Motion down as an opposed Motion for debate at 7 o'Clock on some evening. I hope, in the circumstances, that that may not be necessary, but naturally I am in the hands of the House. For the moment, perhaps the Motion could he deferred until tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

School Meals

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the numbers of school children receiving school dinners in Fife, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee on 1st March, 1951, and on 1st July, 1951, respectively.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): As comparison is most easily effected by a tabular arrangement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend indicate now whether there is any substantial decrease in the numbers, and if there is any decrease and the figures continue to fall, will he indicate what steps he will take to review the position?

Mr. McNeil: As my hon. Friend doubtless knows from an answer which I have given before, there is no substantial decrease over the whole picture. If the general situation should change, I would consider the position again.

Following is the information:




March, 1951.
June, 1951.


Fife
…
20,674
18,200


Lanarkshire
…
34,996
32,744


Ayrshire
…
19,476
18,515


Glasgow
…
59,073
57,831


Edinburgh
…
19,800
18,536


Aberdeen Burgh
…
6,017
5,669


Dundee
…
10,527
9,868


The figures are for June, because most of he schools were closed by 1st July.

Old People's Homes

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homes are provided for old people by local authorities under the National Assistance Act; the total number of old people in them; and the number of such homes which do not provide for separate sick-bay accommodation.

Mr. McNeil: In Scotland 72 homes with 4,634 beds are provided directly by local authorities under the Act. Some of these beds, however, are available for disabled persons who may not be old. There are also 19 institutions, transferred to regional hospital boards, in which authorities have a right to use 1,339 beds. The total number of persons resident in this accommodation is approximately 4,000. The information asked for in the last part of the Question, I regret, is not available.

Mr. Hamilton: If the information asked for in the latter part of the Question is not available, how is it that in a letter which I have recently received from the Department it is said that most authorities have, in fact, provided this sick-bay accommodation? If the information is not available now, how was it available then?

Mr. McNeil: Because it is a subject for each individual authority. Most authorities prefer to have a flexible arrangement relating to the use of their beds; most authorities, I am glad to say, are able to set aside a sick-bay.

Building Programme (Steel)

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what total tonnage of reinforcing steel will be required for the 1951 building programme; and whether he anticipates that supplies will be continuously available.

Mr. McNeil: It is estimated that 1,000 tons of reinforcing steel will be required for the housing programme in Scotland


during the remaining five months of this year. The demands of the defence programme make the supply of steel rods particularly difficult. My Department will, however, continue to make every effort to meet the needs of particular schemes.

Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware of the virtual hold-up in housing at the moment through shortage of these rods, and is he further aware that even old bedsteads are now being used in place of proper reinforcing steel in order to prevent a complete stoppage? Would the Minister say what he is doing to overcome the immediate difficulty?

Mr. McNeil: I would not agree that there is a general hold-up. I have no information supporting that contention. As I indicated in an earlier debate, wherever a specific supply problem is brought to my attention, then my Department, with my right hon. Friend, attempt to remedy that temporary situation.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the Secretary of State noticed that this Question refers to building, without any qualification of any kind, and will he say how much of the reinforced steel will be allocated to the building of ships and agricultural machinery where the steel is very badly needed?

Mr. McNeil: I should not like to give a firm opinion, but the Question refers to reinforcing steel and, therefore, primarily to housing. Although I am no expert on the subject, I should not think that the ships which are built in my part of the world are held together by reinforcing rods.

Mr. Spence: May I ask for an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will look into this matter so far as it affects North-East Scotland, and will he accept my assurance that there is a real hold-up there at the present time?

Mr. McNeil: I shall be most anxious to consider any specific information and to give every possible help.

Mr. McInnes: If 500 tons of steel are required for the housing programme, what percentage is that of the total steel required for the building programme in Scotland?

Mr. McNeil: I think 1,000 tons will be necessary for the housing programme

in the current year. I regret that I could not make a calculation as to the percentage.

Judicial Salaries

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to an increase in salaries for full-time sheriffs, sheriff substitutes, and members of the Land Court, apart from the Chairman.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement regarding judicial salaries in Scotland.

Mr. McNeil: It has been decided to increase the salaries of whole-time sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute in Scotland by £500. The salary of the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court will be increased by the same amount; the position of the lay members of that Court is under consideration.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Would it not be advisable to treat the members of the Land Court on the same basis as sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute, and would it not also be advisable to treat the Chairman of the Land Court in his proper rank as a full judge of the Court of Session?

Mr. McNeil: I have already indicated that since we were considering what increases were appropriate in this range, an increase has been awarded to the Chairman of the Court. We are actively studying the position of the lay members.

Mr. Boothby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement, particularly with regard to sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute, will be welcomed throughout Scotland?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent statement made on behalf of the Government by the President of the Board of Trade that workers must exercise continuous restraint in wage claims? Does this not apply to the legal profession?

Mr. McNeil: I should say that these gentlemen have been restrained and temperate in their attitude.

Mr. Boothby: Too restrained.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these increases carry with them a corresponding increase in responsibility of the Government to make sure that the profession is open to all who have the talent and is not closed to people for financial reasons? Will he consider the possibility of an inquiry into the conditions of admission to the Scottish Bar with a view to introducing reform in that respect?

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this information will cause great concern throughout Scotland and that this decision will be regretted by many people in Scotland? Does he not consider that the Chairman of the Land Court, with already over £2,000 a year salary, is getting enough without this further increase? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that an increase in salary of the sheriff clerks would have been much more justified than in the case of sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is the Secretary of State not aware that there is no class in the community which has more to gain by an upright administration of justice than the poorest and lowest paid members of the community?

Mr. Carmichael: Will my right hon. Friend be presenting a statement to the House so that we can discuss it? I am asking for the information because we discussed the increase in old-age pensions and, since we debated that increase of 4s., I think there is a very sound case for debating the £500 a year increase to the sheriffs.

Mr. McNeil: This increase will take place by administrative action and, subject to your guidance, Mr. Speaker, I should think that any question affecting the Bench would be dealt with by other machinery altogether.

Mr. Carmichael: I am not reflecting on the Bench. I am only asking for information

Local Authority Accounts, Inverness

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why three officials of the Scottish Home Department spent the 15th, 16th and 17th of May, and one of them in addition the 18th and 19th, in Inverness going over the accounts of the fire committee.

Mr. McNeil: Three officials of the Scottish Home Department, one of whom was a trainee, were in Inverness from the 16th to the 19th May to make a test check of grant claims of three authorities, including the Northern Fire Area Joint Committee. The claims related to the grants for the police, fire, Civil Defence, children, probation and remand home services.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not the case that the accounts of every local authority and every committee of a local authority are audited by an auditor appointed by the Scottish Home Department and are not these accounts, with the report of the auditor and his remarks, sent to the Scottish Home Department? Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that this is not a waste of public money and duplication?

Mr. McNeil: It is not a duplication. As the noble Lord suggests, other certificates are available. But these test checks, which are made in order to ensure that the committees qualify for grants, are quite normal, and I do not agree that this expeditious and essential check is a waste of public money.

Childbirth (Analgesia)

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will consult with the Minister of Health, with a view to ascertaining whether any survey has been made in such constituencies in England as are fully equipped with gas and air machines, as to why these are not being used in domiciliary confinements; and if he will have regard to the reasons for non-use before urging such machines upon local authorities in Scotland;
(2) if, before urging Scottish local authorities to buy gas and air machines for use in domiciliary confinements, he will have regard for the expressed wish of expectant mothers as to the type of analgesia they prefer.

Mr. McNeil: I shall be happy to consider any relevant information about the position in England. But, in some circumstances, gas and air is still, I am advised, the most suitable type of analgesia where a midwife is acting on her own responsibility, and I therefore consider it essential that all local health authorities should provide a sufficient number of the necessary gas and air machines.

Mrs. Mann: I consider the reply of my right hon. Friend shows appalling ignorance of the situation. [HON. MEMBERS "Order."] For example, in Monmouthshire, where there are 72 midwives —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Shall I put it this way? Why is my right hon. Friend not aware that in Monmouthshire, where there are 72 midwives fully trained in analgetics and equipped with 72 machines, they still have no less than 846 mothers who received no analgesia, not even gas and air, from the midwives? Mind you, they were attended by midwives alone.

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry about my ignorance of Monmouthshire, but my time is so much taken up with Coatbridge that I really cannot deal with Monmouthshire.

Secondary Schools (Teachers)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many senior secondary schools are at present without a fully-qualified teacher of mathematics; and what steps he proposes in order to ensure that the supply of such teachers is distributed to the best advantage.

Mr. McNeil: I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks in the first part of his Question is not available. The staffing of schools is the responsibility of the education authorities and I have no power, nor do I seek power, to direct the transfer of teachers from one area, or one school, to another.

Tuberculosis (Hospital Accommodation)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the adaptation of wards in general and infectious diseases hospitals for tuberculosis patients.

Mr. McNeil: Quarterly progress returns are made by regional hospital boards. The March return showed real progress in the infectious diseases hospitals. The problem is more difficult in the general hospitals, and I would prefer to await the June figures before making any statement. I shall, however, be glad to write to my hon. Friend when the figures become available.

Mr. MacPherson: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the authorities, medical and lay, of the general hospitals are fully aware of the vital importance of making the adaptation referred to in the Question, even at the cost of some disturbance of their ordinary hospital work?

Mr. McNeil: I must admit that if the authorities are aware of the importance of this modification in the general hospitals, at any rate they have not responded with any marked number of beds so far. I am very glad of my hon. Friend's support, and I shall continue to press for action on this subject, since I agree with him that its importance is very great.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the right hon. Gentleman not unduly press the local authorities to disturb the ordinary care of the sick, the need for which is in many cases very urgent indeed and is causing great hardship to people who cannot get admission to ordinary wards?

Mr. McNeil: Of course, I should not be rash enough to make such an interference, but we have already had some success, for example in Edinburgh, where nurses have been made available. My recollection is that it is at the Edinburgh Royal. I am quite sure we can extend that kind of example without causing any inconvenience to the general hospitals and that it will be of benefit to our tubercular cases.

Retired Teachers (Pensions)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in regard to the resolution passed by the Retired Teachers' Association on 25th June, a copy of which has been sent to him, urging the immediate upward revision of teachers' pensions, together with the abolition of the means test.

Mr. McNeil: I have given sympathetic consideration to the resolution, but I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 24th April last to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble).

Sir T. Moore: What is the use of increasing the salaries of teachers if the right hon. Gentleman does not increase the pensions as well, since it is the defence


against the hazards of old age which will be the greatest incentive to induce people into the teaching profession, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes them to enter it?

Mr. McNeil: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, perhaps unwittingly, confusing the subject here. Where there is an increase in salaries, of course there is a proportionate change in pensions. The Question refers to a group of people with whom I have every sympathy—retired men and women who are, of course, not affected by salary changes.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that cases of extreme hardship are arising among teachers who retired many years ago from salaries considerably lower than what would be the corresponding salary for equivalent work today? Cannot he regard this as a special case?

Mr. McNeil: I am worried about this, but there is a large group of people affected in this way and I cannot add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Rankin: In order to attract these people into the teaching profession, could my right hon. Friend not take the necessary steps to ensure that when retired teachers return to the teaching profession they do not lose the pensions they have earned?

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these older retired teachers are finding things particularly difficult at present? Cannot he examine the position with a view to making some easement?

Housing

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many permanent houses have been built during this year up to 30th June; and how many he estimates will be completed during the remaining six months of the year.

Mr. McNeil: The returns for June are not yet complete. The number of houses completed in the first five months of the year was 8,724. In present circumstances, I am unable to estimate the number likely to be completed by the end of the year.

Sir T. Moore: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that that is not a very satisfactory answer. Not being a mathematician myself, could I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can

give any indication of what his answer means in terms of years before the people of Scotland will be re-housed? If the answer is, as I imagine, about 28 years, will he say how that corresponds with the promise given by many Socialist Ministers, including the late Mr. Bevin, that millions of houses would be built in no time?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) made an eloquent plea for more slaughterhouses? Will he give us an assurance that slaughterhouses will not have a priority over ordinary houses?

Mr. J. J. Robertson: Can my right hon. Friend indicate what proportion of this year's programme for Scottish building consists of three-apartment houses?

Mr. McNeil: I am afraid that I could not without notice.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot estimate the number of houses which will be completed by the end of the year, is not that a complete admission that the planned economy has broken down?

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. It arises from the fact that, quite plainly, not all these materials are under our control and therefore could not fit into our planned economy. If I am honest with the House, I hope hon. Members opposite will bear with me for being honest.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that at Symington, Ayrshire, there have been 18 houses under construction for months; that everything has been completed to prepare for their occupancy, except for the necessary joining work, doors, etc., though the necessary timber is lying unused around the sites; and what steps does he propose to take to make these houses ready for immediate occupation.

Mr. McNeil: I am told by the county council that the main cause of delay is the shortage of plasterboard, and that there has also been difficulty in getting enough joiners. The county council are taking steps to ensure that the scheme is fully manned by the contractor, and I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to do what he can to accelerate supplies of plasterboard.

Sir T. Moore: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful answer, may I ask him to remember that although Symington is a small village and the number of people in it is comparatively unimportant, it is nevertheless rather a tragedy for these people to see the stuff lying about while the houses are not completed? "Houses under construction" does not mean anything to them as long as they have no home to live in.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the trouble at Symington that the local authority does not do its joining work by direct labour and as expeditiously as the Socialist Town Council of Cumnock?

Mr. McNeil: I should certainly like to say that I have had fewer complaints recently from Cumnock than from this other area.

New Schools, Midlothian

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision is being made to provide new schools in Midlothian, in view of the large increase in the population and the poor condition of many existing school buildings, especially at Woodmuir and Ratho.

Mr. McNeil: Midlothian Education Authority have submitted to me proposals for four new primary schools and two new secondary schools in the area of their developing coalfield, and work on one major extension to a school is about to start at Gorebridge. The provision of new schools in the developing areas must, understandably, have precedence over replacements.

Mr. Pryde: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I remind him that Lothian is a receiving area for Lanarkshire mineworkers and that a due proportion of the building programme is required in Midlothian?

Jetty, Eriskay

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the need for a jetty in the Isle of Eriskay; whether Inverness County Council has yet applied for a grant to assist with its construction; and what steps he is taking to meet this urgent need of this community of fishermen.

Mr. McNeil: Inverness County Council have agreed that a jetty to serve Eriskay

is necessary. It is on the list of essential piers in the programme of Highland development. I am awaiting an application by the Council for a grant in this case.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are sometimes inordinate delays in making these applications, and that meantime the fishermen are labouring under most primitive disadvantages in having to land their gear and commodities over rocks and seaweed because of the lack of any pier? Will he go out of his way a little bit to try to persuade Inverness County Council to hurry up, and will he expedite the matter when it comes to him?

Mr. McNeil: I think my hon. Friend has as much power to hurry the county council as I have, but I promise him that as quickly as I have the application I will deal with it.

Mr. Boothby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this kind of neglect, which is only too common in the Hebrides, would not be tolerated by the Colonial Office in respect of a desert island at the other end of the Pacific?

Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to deal with the people of East Aberdeen as we sometimes have to deal with the people of backward areas, I decline the invitation.

Mr. Spence: Would the Secretary of State agree that when this jetty is finally built it should be called the Mitchell jetty in order to anticipate coming events?

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since this Government came into power there has been more sympathy for the Isle of Eriskay, which was left without a road as well as without a jetty until a few years ago?

Lobster Fishing Order

Mr. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the widespread indignation and the loss now being suffered by lobster fishermen in the Western Isles through the operation of the Order restricting the size and condition of lobsters landed or sold; and whether, at least in respect of those caught for retention and feeding in the lobster ponds in the Islands, he will take steps to relax its application.

Mr. McNeil: I realise that the Order may, to begin with, reduce the number of lobsters landed, but it should lead to increased stocks and so benefit the fishermen. I have no power to except from its operation lobsters landed for storage.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that several of these islands depend upon two industries, those of Harris tweed weaving and lobster fishing, and that the first of them has been almost completely wiped out because of the excessive Purchase Tax which robs them of their profit, and which, with excessive distribution costs, makes it impossible for the working classes to buy tweed in the retail shops?
Is he further aware that the other industry, lobster fishing, is being threatened to the extent of 40 per cent. of the catch in many areas, and that many of the fishermen are going to find it quite impossible to make a living, and not worth while to go to sea, unless some modification is made in the application of the present Order?

Mr. McNeil: I can scarcely believe that 40 per cent. of the catch will be berried lobster, and I possibly have some slight experience of this subject. The fact is that the catches in Scotland have been dropping, and that unless we do something to remedy what is pretty plainly over-fishing, the end position will be much worse than the present.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is examining alternative methods for conserving stocks? Would he, in particular, look at the measures which are, I believe, in force in Canada, where berried lobsters are put into ponds and then put back into the sea?

Mr. McNeil: They are very different kinds of ponds from those we use.

Mr. Grimond: I agree.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how very important this type of fishing is for certain parts of Scotland, particularly along the West Coast? Could he, if necessary, make separate legislation—separate provisions—for fishermen on the West Coast?

Mr. McNeil: I have no doubt that there is over-fishing there.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that alternative proposals have been put forward by many of the fishermen, who have suggested a close time when the fishermen would be least affected by losses, and which period happens to coincide with the heaviest time of spawning? Is he further aware that there has been a decrease along the West Coast because the lobster ponds in the Western Isles have been overwhelmed with landings during the last 100 years? There is no evidence in the practical experience of fishermen that there has been a decrease.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he concentrates his whole attention on the lobsters of the Western Isles there may be widespread indignation amongst the lobsters along the East Coast, and that they may refuse to be caught?

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Has any agreement so far been reached with France upon this subject?

Mr. McNeil: The French do not fish in the waters to which this Question refers.

Mr. MacMillan: They do.

Water Supplies, Ross and Cromarty

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the progress that is being made with plans to provide water supplies to rural areas in Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. McNeil: Satisfactory progress is being made within the available resources with the schemes at present in progress. While there were difficulties at an earlier stage with the planning of the additional schemes yet to be undertaken, this work also is now proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. MacLeod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, certainly in Ross-shire, people feel that these schemes are going forward very slowly indeed? I hope that he will look very carefully into the difficulties he talked about to see that they are overcome.

Development Schemes, Shetland

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to


be able to give a decision on the schemes for the development of the Scalloway-Trondra-Burra Isle area of Shetland.

Mr. McNeil: Technical reports on this proposal will be completed shortly. They will be considered in conjunction with the Advisory Panel on the Highlands and Islands, and a decision will be taken as quickly as possible.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, will he do his best to expedite the matter, which has been dragging on, I think, for some time? Second, can he say whether both the scheme for the causeway and the scheme for an extension of the Blackness pier at the Isle of Scalloway are regarded as alternatives or as separate schemes?

Mr. McNeil: I think it will be found that the two schemes, the one at Blackness and the other the causeway, are mutually exclusive.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a very valuable fishing fleet in this area which, with a new type of boat, has not adequate safe harbour facilities, and that a causeway of 500 feet from Trondra to the other side would provide such a safe harbour? Will he give urgent attention to this matter in view of the possibility of unemployment in the area?

Mr. McNeil: The construction of the harbour will provide such accommodation.

Harbour Facilities, Mallaig

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he contemplates taking with a view to improving the harbour and berthing facilities for the fishing fleet at Mallaig.

Mr. McNeil: The responsibility for carrying out improvements at Mallaig Harbour lies with the British Transport Commission, and I have drawn the attention of the Railway Executive to the needs of the fishing industry.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Mallaig is the nearest railhead from the Minch fishing grounds for the southern markets? In view of the importance of this, and of the very unsatisfactory nature of the harbour and berthing facilities at present, will he make every effort to get something done?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Personal Cases

Lieut.-Commander R. H. Thompson: asked the Minister of Pensions when Mr. John Touhey, 100 per cent. disabled ex-Service man, 6, Benson Road, Waddon, Croydon, may expect delivery of a folding wheeled chair to replace the unsuitable one supplied on 9th December, 1950.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Isaacs): It was very difficult to provide a wheelchair suitable for Mr. Touhey owing to his inability to use a standard model, but after he had been visited by one of my technical officers a chair was specially made. It was despatched to Mr. Touhey by the manufacturers on 27th July.

Lieut.-Commander Thompson: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to ensure that the unsuitable chair which has been lying in Mr. Touhey's house since the first week in December last year is collected, because it is in every way new and a suitable chair for presentation to some other ex-Service man?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that we shall collect that chair and make use of it for somebody who really needs it.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Pensions on what grounds he has refused a pension for the widow of 2nd Engineer William Dunlop, who was presumed drowned as from 26th March, 1942, from ss. "Queen Mary," of whose case he already has details and correspondence.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that I am unable to award a pension to this lady, having regard to the provisions of the War Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Act, 1942. Mrs. Dunlop has been notified that she has a right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal against my decision.

Mr. Crouch: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that justice has been done to this lady, who lost her husband in 1942 when serving this country in taking troops through the Pacific Ocean; and if this man had been a member of the Royal Navy and had lost his life in similar circumstances, would his widow have been deprived of a pension?

Mr. Isaacs: I have already given the hon. Gentleman full particulars in answer to his inquiry, setting out the full facts.


I cannot add to that. I can add, however, that I think this lady is entitled to every sympathy, but I am bound by the Act of Parliament, and I hope that whatever assistance we can give to her to take the case to appeal will readily be given.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that this man was not serving his country and was not on war service at the time of his death?

Mr. Isaacs: It is quite improper for the hon. Gentleman to read any such suggestion into what I have said. I said nothing of the sort. I said that we have every sympathy with her.

Mr. Fisher: Why not give her a pension?

Mr. Isaacs: Because she is not entitled to it.

Mr. Fisher: Grossly unfair.

Limbless Centre, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Pensions the cause of the delay in opening the new limbless centre in Leicester.

Mr. Isaacs: The delay is largely due to the need for alterations to premises in order to provide the specialised service. Negotiations with the owner are in progress. As I said in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 24th July, I hope the centre will be opened by early September.

. Mr. Janner: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the owner of the premises is doing a very great disservice to the limbless people of Leicester by not agreeing to the slight alteration required; and will my right hon. Friend point out to the owner that it is a very serious thing to hold up a matter of this sort on the very scanty excuse that he is putting forward at present?

Mr. Isaacs: I should not like to say he was doing a disservice. I should like to put it the other way, that he would do a very great service to a number of limbless pensioners in the area if he would hurry up the decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Railway Accident

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Lord Privy Seal the reason for two trains on the

Emmett railway at the Festival Gardens proceeding at the same time and on the same line in opposite directions to a head-on collision on 11th July, 1951; what signalling arrangements are in force on this railway; what safety devices are installed; and whether the railway is now closed to the general public.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Stokes): One of the drivers failed to carry out the very simple system which is in operation to prevent such an occurrence. There is no signalling system, but other forms of control are used. There are no electric or mechanical safety devices installed. The railway is not now closed to the public.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the two locomotives involved in this head-on collision, named, respectively "Nellie" and "Wild Goose," on the Oyster Creek and Far Tottering Railway, are now restored to full operational efficiency; and will he give the House a further assurance that every step will be taken to prevent a repetition of this very sad episode?

Mr. Stokes: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "Yes, Sir"—at least, I think it is. With regard to the danger, if the hon. Gentleman will study the report of the inquest, he will find that the jury added nothing to their verdict of "Accidental death."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which of the peculiarities of this railway caused it to be the only one in the United Kingdom about whose administration Ministers will answer Questions in this House?

Mr. Stokes: I think the answer to that is that the Festival Gardens are prepared to answer for anything.

Mr. Driberg: Since this railway is always referred to by the name of the distinguished artist who decorated it, is it not only fair to him to point out that he was responsible only for the superstructure and the decorative part of it, and not for the mechanical side of it at all; and would it not also be fair to spell his name correctly?

Mr. Stokes: I can assure my hon. Friend that he did not design the accident.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Lord Privy Seal the casualties sustained on 11th July, 1951, when a head-on collision took place on the Emmett Railway at the Festival Gardens; what arrangements he has made for passengers on this railway to be insured against loss of life and personal injury; and whether he will make a statement regarding insurance of passengers for all risks for the guidance of future passengers on all similar conveyances in the Festival Gardens.

Mr. Stokes: The casualties were, I regret to say, one killed and 12 injured. The Festival Gardens Company insists on all concessionaires being adequately insured against loss of life and personal injury, and the concessionaire concerned was so covered. The Company is itself fully covered against contingency liability, if any.

Season Tickets

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in order to encourage the sale of season tickets for the South Bank Exhibition, he will reduce the present charges of 25s. and £4 for weekly and monthly season tickets, respectively.

Mr. Stokes: No, Sir. The weekly and monthly tickets, which admit to the South Bank, the Science and Architecture Exhibitions, are already good value, having regard to the prices for single admission to these Exhibitions.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a fact that the sale of these season tickets has been so small as barely to cover the cost of printing; and would it not help to increase the sale of these tickets if the price were reduced, because obviously the price is so high that the tickets are not being sold?

Mr. Stokes: I do not know about the relative cost of printing and distribution, but there are other difficulties, and I am satisfied that the prices we are charging are not unreasonable in the circumstances.

School Parties

Mr. Dodds: asked the Lord Privy Seal the number of schoolchildren visitors to the South Bank Exhibition up to the last convenient date.

Mr. Stokes: Four hundred and seventy thousand schoolchildren have so far visited the South Bank Exhibition in

school parties. The latest available returns show that altogether there have been over 800,000 admissions at half-price.

Receipts and Expenditure

Mr. Dodds: asked the Lord Privy Seal the income and the maintenance costs of the South Bank Exhibition up to the last available date.

Mr. Stokes: Up to last Saturday, 28th July, the admission revenue at the South Bank Exhibition from the opening date was about £860,000 and the running expenditure about £280,000.

Mr. Dodds: Are the figures my right hon. Friend has given up to expectations; and does he not think that with a shorter season, and a change in policy and in some of the exhibits, it could be continued in 1952; and if not, will he give an assurance that the site which has given pleasure to so many millions of people will not be derelict in 1952?

Mr. Stokes: The figures are getting very near to what we anticipated. I have already answered questions about the continuation of the South Bank. I am open-minded about it, and, if conditions and attendances prove that it is desirable to keep it open longer, we will see if we can find some way of doing so.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a decision on this matter will be finally taken?

Mr. Stokes: I should not think it would be possible to take a decision on the South Bank until towards the end of the summer period, because that is the time when we expect the greatest attendances. Until those have been achieved it would be unwise to attempt any calculation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Festival of Britain Council will have an opportunity of stating their objections before a decision is taken?

Mr. Stokes: They have already been asked to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MATERIALS

Softwoods

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the recent Anglo-Canadian and Anglo-Russian contracts


for imports of softwoods into the United Kingdom during 1951, what will be the total estimated imports of softwoods, excluding pit wood and plywood, during the calendar year 1951; what will be the aggregate number of standards of softwood for which his Department will issue consumption licences during the calendar year 1951; and whether he can state the comparable figures for total imports and total consumption in respect of the calendar year 1950.

Mr. Stokes: I am not prepared to forecast arrivals of softwood up to the end of this year, except to say that they will be pretty good, since there are so many hazards which may prevent the fulfilment of present estimates. Our imports of sawn softwood should be very much greater than in 1950, when they were some 825,000 standards. The present rate of consumption is about 1.1 million standards a year as compared with just over one million standards in 1950. The future level of consumption must depend on the adequacy of our stocks for commercial and other purposes, and on our balance of overseas payments.

Mr. Nabarro: While not wishing to press the right hon. Gentleman in regard to strategic requirements, may I ask whether he can give the House an assurance that the stockpiling programme for softwood timber is proceeding satisfactorily and in accordance with the schedule originally arranged by his right hon. Friend, the former President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Stokes: I am not quite sure about the schedule prepared. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that by Christmas of this year it will be very much higher than I ever anticipated.

Newsprint

Mr. Hurd: asked the Lord Privy Seal if there is now an early prospect of additional supplies of newsprint becoming available to allow the newspapers to fulfil their functions more adequately; and what provision has been made for special allocations of newsprint during the period of a General Election.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the need to restore stocks of newsprint to a safer level, I do not think that there is any early prospect of an increase in consumption by newspapers or other users. The

question of special allocations to meet a General Election will be considered when the need arises.

Mr. Hurd: As that need may possibly arise quite quickly, have the Newsprint Supply Company been authorised by the Government to issue, say, enough additional newsprint for another four pages on to the 1½d. paper during the period of the election so that they are all ready with their stocks to meet that demand?

Mr. Stokes: We will have a look at that when the time comes. I do not anticipate that it will come in the immediate future.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the dramatic increase in the price of newsprint, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it will be possible to hold the General Election at all?

Imported Timber (Cutting)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Lord Privy Seal why the timber for housing work has not been cut into the scantlings required at its place of origin, instead of the tree-trunks being shipped to Great Britain, thus wasting freight charges upon a quantity of wood which is not used.

Mr. Stokes: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the imports of tree-trunks to which he refers, I will look into the matter. It is usual to import timber for housing in the form of sawn softwood of recognised dimensions.

Mr. Bossom: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many tree-trunks have been imported in this way, and that it is perfectly proper and easy to do it the other way, which is the normal way in ordinary commercial practice?

Mr. Stokes: I have asked the hon. Gentleman for particulars. It does not necessarily follow that because logs come in they are not wanted. Wood used for shoring, pile work on docks, and so on, is brought in as bulk timber. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars I will certainly examine them.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister not aware that, if he will look into this question of logs coming in in that way he will find straight away that a good many of them are being cut up afterwards for use in housing work?

Mr. Stokes: If the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars I will look at it.

Mr. Bossom: I will certainly send particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Personal Cases

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for War why Mrs. Martin received no information from his Department about her son, since died of wounds received in Korea, between 18th April when she was informed that he was severely wounded and about 22nd May when she flew out as he was dangerously ill, in spite of the fact that she herself knew of his whereabouts and informed his Department accordingly.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): The hon. and gallant Member will by now have received a letter from my hon. Friend explaining in full the circumstances of this tragic case.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that if this lady had not heard by chance that her son was in a Danish hospital ship, he might have died without the War Office knowing anything about it until afterwards? Will he give an assurance that when there is no news, as in this case, nothing is ever taken for granted until the fullest possible inquiries have been made?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir; but the difficulty was, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that this man was in a Danish ship and was then transferred to an American hospital, and he did not come under our direct jurisdiction during that period.

Commander Noble: Is it not the case that if, when this lady began to make inquiries, the fullest possible inquiries had been made at the other end—and it is at the other end that I suggest the fault lies—information could have been given?

Captain Ryder: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that in the special circumstances existing in Korea, with so many different nationalities, the arrangements for pooling and exchanging information are adequate?

Mr. Strachey: We do our best in that direction. It does produce, of course, a complication, and we are always trying to improve these arrangements, but

delays do sometimes arise because of that factor.

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for War how many different bodies were identified as that of 1115452 Gunner Ernest Clinton; and on what grounds.

Mr. Strachey: Only one body was so identified. The evidence of identification consisted of statements signed by two of this soldier's comrades and countersigned by his battery commander. I am sending the hon. Member copies of their statements giving the exact grounds of identification.

Mr. Maclean: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in these circumstances, why he referred to a second body in reply to a supplementary question by me last month?

Mr. Strachey: There were other bodies exhumed at the time, and sketches were made of the tattoo marks on these bodies. One of these sketches, as the hon. Member knows, was sent to Mrs. Clinton, and she was clear that this was not of the body of her husband.

Release by Purchase

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War the grounds on which he is satisfied that the fact that release by purchase during the first three months of attestation was in suspense was drawn to the attention of a young soldier, particulars of whom have been sent him; and whether he will reconsider his decision to refuse release to this man.

Mr. Strachey: Recruiting instructions require recruiting officers to make clear each clause in a soldier's attestation, and they are particularly careful to explain the present position as regards Clause 8. The recruiting officer has stated categorically that he never fails to comply with recruiting instructions, and I am therefore unable to accept the soldier's contention that, in his case, these instructions were not complied with.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that, according to the letter sent to me by the right hon. Gentleman's Under-Secretary, the recruiting officer in this case could not recollect the interview at all; and in view of the fact that the form put before this young soldier specifically told him that he had the right of release by purchase within three months and contained no indication that that right was


in suspense, does not he think that this comes precious near to sharp practice?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The instructions are perfectly clear, and the recruiting officer is perfectly clear that he carried them out.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, he is not.

Mr. Strachey: I think that it is desirable—and this has now been arranged—that a printed slip should be placed on the attestation form which makes the position perfectly clear with regard to Clause 8.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the fact that the form was not clear and the recruiting officer cannot recollect this case every reason for the right hon. Gentleman to give this young man the benefit of the doubt?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. This case is on all fours with other cases at that time, and the recruiting officer is perfectly certain that he carried out his instructions in this and all other cases.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise this question on the Adjournment, if the right hon. Gentleman is still there to answer it.

N.A.A.F.I. Prices

Mr. Steward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers in Korea and the Far East have been informed that extra transport and shipping costs for Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes must be borne by the consumer in each zone; that Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes canteen and store prices in the British Army of the Rhine are from 10 to 15 per cent. lower than prices for similar articles in Korea; and if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT an up-to-date comparison price list for the two areas referred to.

Mr. Strachey: Normally the transport and shipping costs in the area concerned are reflected in N.A.A.F.I. prices overseas. In the case of Korea, however, N.A.A.F.I. prices are largely based on Hong Kong prices, notwithstanding the cost of the considerable additional sea and rail freight to forward areas in Korea. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the current prices of N.A.A.F.I. articles in Germany and Korea.

Following is the table:


N.A.A.F.I. PRICES IN KOREA AND B.A.O.R.


Item
Korea price
B.A.O.R. price


Combs
5½d.
5½d.


Laces—




Shoe (black and brown)
3d.
3d.


Boot (leather)
6d.
6d.


Boot polish—




Cherry Blossom No. 2
5½d.
4d.


Cherry Blossom No. 3
9½d.
8d.


Kiwi, small
5d.
4½d.


Kiwi, large
8d.
8d.


Brushes—




Nail
11d.
1s. 0d.


Shaving 
3s. 0d. and 5s. 4d.
2s. 8½d. and 4s. 9d.


Tooth
1s. 2d.
1s. 1d.


Metal polish—




Bluebell No. 3
1s. 0d.
10d.


Bluebell No. 6
1s. 7½d.
1s. 4½d.


Silvo No. 6 
1s. 6½d.
1s. 4d.


Soap—




Toilet, Palmolive, 3½ oz.
8½d.
3 oz. 5d.


Toilet, Lux, 3½ oz.
8d.
3 oz. 5d.


Toilet, Lifebuoy, 4 oz.
9d.
3 oz. 4½d.


Shaving, Lever's Easy
9½d.
7½d.


Shaving, Gibbs (Blue and Gold)
9d.
8d.


Shaving, Colgate's Brushless
1s. 3d.
1s. 1½d.


Shaving, Palmolive Cream
1s. 6d.
1s. 4d.


Flakes, Lux, 6 oz. packet
1s. 1½d.
11d.


Tooth paste—




Macleans
1s. 5d.
1s. 3d.


Pepsodent (medium)
1s. 3d.
1s. 3d.


Kolynos (medium)
1s. 6d.
1s. 3½d.


Hair preparations—




Brylcreem
1s. 10d.
1s. 9d.


Vaseline Hair Tonic
1s. 10d.
1s. 7½d.


Chocolate, nominal 2 oz.
6d.
6d. Plain




6½d. Milk


Chewing Gum, P.K.
1d.
1½d.


Cigarettes, "Players" type, 20s
11d.
1s. 0d.


Tobacco, 2 oz
1s. 7d. to 3s. 0d.
1s. 8½d. to 3s. 2d.


Matches, box
1d.
1d.


Beer, U.K. reputed pint
1s. 2d.
11d.


Fruit squashes—




Idris
3s. 0d.
3s. 0d.


Writing pads—




Air Speed Mail
7½d.
6½d.


Tudor (10 in. by 8 in.)
1s. 0d.
1s. 0d.


Ink
6½d. to 1s. 0d.
5½d. to 10d.


Razor blades
1d. to 4d.
1½d. to 3½d.


Andrews Liver Salts
1s. 5d.
1s. 2½d.


Milk½




Evaporated unsweetened 16 oz.
1s. 3d.
1s. 1½d.


Condensed sweetened14 oz
1s. 6d.
1s. 4d.


Equipment Cleaner
6d.
5d.

Class Z Reservists (T.A. Postings)

Mr. John Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the Class Z reservists called up this year and posted to Territorial Army units have been posted to units whose headquarters are near the Class Z reservist's home.

Mr. Strachey: The information asked for is not readily available. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) and the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on 26th June.

Mr. Tilney: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that without Territorial volunteers it would be impossible for a large part of the Z reservists scheme to work at all? Does he realise that certain units, one of which I visited the other day, have only 8 per cent. Z reservists from their home area; and will he see that next year the Records Office has sufficient clerks and machines to avoid that mistake happening again?

Mr. Strachey: I do not think that it is a question of the staffing of the Records Office; it is what priority is given to the different factors in the call-up of Z reservists. Last time, the geographical areas from which they came, suitability for a particular job, and all the other factors were taken into consideration; but we have been going into the question in the War Office of whether, in the event of a further call-up next year, the geographical factor should be given higher priority.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that this particular information is very relevant to the whole of this scheme, and can he say why it is still not readily available?

Mr. Strachey: We should place a very considerable burden on the Records Office if we asked them to do so

Brigadier Head: To say that this information is not readily available is tantamount to saying that it had not been taken into account when these men were called up; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is strong feeling in many units that little or no regard has been paid to the geographical question, which is one of the most fruitful questions if Z reservists are to become permanent Territorials?

Mr. Strachey: Some regard has been paid to it, but it has not been given the highest priority.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Is it not a fact that this system is entirely contrary to the whole principle of the Territorial Army, that it should be based on local recruiting and readily available for call-up; and is it not certain that many of these men would, if they had been called to local units, have re-enlisted with the Territorials and will now be lost to the Territorial Army?

Mr. Strachey: I quite agree that from that point of view it would be very good to give this geographical factor a higher priority, but we should then have to give consideration to whether other strong proposals of the House, such as last back first in, were given a lower priority.

T.A. Civilian Personnel (Pay)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for War from what date the recent increase of pay of temporary civil servants employed by units of the Territorial Army will be calculated; and whether this increase in pay has yet been received by the civil servants concerned.

Mr. Strachey: Increases in pay for certain civilian staff employed by Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations take effect from 1st December, 1950. Instructions about the increase were issued on 13th July, 1951. There may be some delay in the calculation and issue of back pay, but I anticipate that the revised rates should now be in issue to most of the clerks concerned.

Mr. Tilney: Could the Secretary of State give some reason for this very big delay, considering the announcement was made in "The Times" of last October about this increase, and does he realise that prices have gone up on many semi-necessities during the last six months?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but these financial questions are not without delay, and they do require consultation between the various Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY CEMETERIES

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to give the House regarding the maintenance and general


condition of British military cemeteries on the Continent of Europe and in Africa; what is the number of these cemeteries; and what proportion of the staffs in charge of them is British.

Mr. Strachey: The maintenance of British Commonwealth war cemeteries in all countries is the responsibility of the Imperial War Graves Commission. The Commission publish an annual report, with illustrations, from which the general high standard of maintenance can be judged. Each year twenty copies of the report are placed in the Library of the House. In Europe and Africa there are 2,480 British Commonwealth war cemeteries. This figure includes the larger war grave plots in civil cemeteries. The Commission employ 1,680 persons in Europe and Africa, of whom 1,055 are nationals of Commonwealth countries.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Will the right hon. Gentleman amplify that information? Is there, in every case, at least one Briton in charge of every cemetery?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot, without notice, say whether that is so universally, but I have very great confidence in the Commission and in their maintenance of these cemeteries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. R. A. Butler: Has the Leader of the House any statement to make about Business?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. It is proposed tomorrow, Wednesday, to take formally the Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidation Fund (Appropriation) Bill. The adjournment of the House will then be moved, and a debate will take place on equipment for the Royal Air Force until 7 p.m. At the end of the debate we shall ask leave to withdraw the Motion for the Adjournment of the House and then consider the Report from the Committee of Privileges on the complaint made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis) and on the complaint made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole).
We are obliged to the Opposition for agreeing to postpone the debate on the new valuation lists so that the Privilege matters may be brought on at a reason-

able hour tomorrow. The debate on the new valuation lists will take place when the House resumes.

Sir Herbert Williams: When will the other Privilege debate take place, which on the last occasion started at 1.32 a.m.?

Mr. Ede: These debates will start at 7 p.m. tomorrow.

Sir H. Williams: There are three. The right hon. Gentleman only mentioned two.

Mr. Ede: I do not know of any more.

Sir H. Williams: There is one in my name and the names of six other hon. Members.

Mr. Ede: I do not regard that as a Motion dealing with Privilege. It is a Motion eventually to refer something back to the Kitchen Committee.

Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that there is the precedent in the Motion concerning the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) before the war, when an attempt to rescind a Privilege decision of the House was considered a Privilege Motion and that therefore time had to be found for it.

Mr. Ede: I regret that I do not see any opportunity of finding time for the hon. Member's Motion.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Is it not one of the practices of the House that no Privilege Motion should stay on the Order Paper without the opportunity being given for debating it?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think so. That is for the Leader of the House. If he cannot find time, he does not find time.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Osborne: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to the fact that a most important Question to the Prime Minister was not reached today. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that some months ago, when the issue of reaching the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Questions was raised, you said that you would consider having the Prime Minister's Questions and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward. In the last week or two, the Chancellor has been playing twelfth man


and has not been able to deal with his Questions. Would it be possible to bring the Prime Minister's Questions to about No. 30, and after them to take the Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Speaker: It is not possible to get this Question answered now. I have no doubt that when we meet again matters can be considered as to whether there should be some re-arrangement in the order of Questions. At the moment, it is quite impossible for the Question to be answered.

Mr. Osborne: I merely raise it now because some months ago the question was brought to your notice, and you said you would consider the matter in the light of the experience of the next few months. I am suggesting to you that, in view of the experience of the last few days, something might be done in the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am continually reviewing the matter and watching Questions all the time so that we might suit the convenience of the House. The trouble is that what suits one Member does not suit another. It is not easy to suit everyone.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I suggest that it would help if some way could be found to enable the Chairman of Ways and Means to deal with Motions such as he raised today at the end of Questions. In this case, we should have reached the Question which my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) wanted to put to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I do not quite understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I make myself clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). complained that Question No. 45 to the Prime Minister had not been reached. At the beginning of Questions today the Chairman of Ways and Means presented a Motion which took up five minutes of Question Time. My point was that if he were enabled to present such a Motion at the end of Questions rather than at the beginning, the complaint of my hon. Friend would not have arisen.

Mr. Speaker: That would require an alteration in the Standing Orders, and I cannot do anything about that. That is a matter for the House.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILLM

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Gaitskell]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I feel that it would meet with the general approval of the House if we used the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill as an opportunity to discuss some of the problems of the transport industry. We have as a background to our debate the Third Report of the British Transport Commission. It contains a mass of detail and factual information of immense benefit to all of us who are concerned and interested in this aspect of our affairs.
A debate of this nature is ill-suited to a Division. At any rate, I do not think we shall divide against the Bill, and that will give an opportunity to Members in all quarters of the House to say what they think without fear or favour, and no one need be anxious about going into the Division Lobby at the end in a manner perhaps a little inconsistent with his arguments.
The Report of the Transport Commission covers a vast range of subjects, almost too vast for any one debate. I wish to devote myself to the big issue of principle concerning the relationship between road and rail transport and the very practical and urgent problem of how the transport industry is to get through next winter. At the same time I think I might be failing in my duty if I did not say something about some of the other principal activities of the British Transport Commission. I propose to leave the question of London, which is an enormous subject on its own, to one of my hon. Friends.
I want to start by saying a few words about the dock industry and the work of the Docks Executive. The docks are the arteries of British commerce, and on the proper use of mechanical appliances in the docks and the labour relations depends the industrial prosperity of the docks, which all of us have at heart. I found the Report of the Docks Executive

the least informative part of the whole Report. They do say that they are satisfied that there is a good rate of output, but such short experience as I have had of the transport industry has taught me that it is unwise to generalise about it, and it is most unwise of all to generalise about the docks. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, or the President of the Board of Trade or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is really satisfied with the rate of output of British docks and harbours at the present time. At any rate, if they are, we are entitled to many more facts and figures than are presented to us in the Report.
I gather that the Docks Executive have visited London, Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol. It is said that they have obtained much valuable and detailed information and that they have made reports to the Commission. The first question that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman is: can we have those reports, too? They should be made available to those of us in this House who make a special study of this subject. It is true, too, that a good deal of the time during 1950 was spent in pursuing the argument as to who should be responsible for providing dock facilities. Various schemes were put forward under Section 66 for the Hartlepools and Aberdeen.
Might I, with some diffidence, offer this advice to the House? If we spent less time arguing about what I regard as the rather academic question of who should be responsible for providing dock facilities, and concentrated more time on trying to improve the port facilities, took steps to improve labour relations, and saw that the mechanical devices now available were worked to the full, we should be doing a better service to the dock industry and to the industry of this country generally.
We have also had presented to us the very valuable report of Sir Frederick Leggett, which still waits an announcement from His Majesty's Government of their attitude on the matter. There was in a few pages of that report more of the real stuff of what is needed about the real problem which has to be dealt with, than in all of the pages of these rather long and academic arguments.
So far as we are concerned, we propose to have—unless the right hon. Gentleman will do it first—an inquiry of that character covering a wider field than London.


So far as the Docks Executive are concerned, we cannot really see that it serves any useful purpose to carve out and centralise this one particular function of transport. It seems contrary not only to good sense but even to the policy of integration, the merits of which the right hon. Gentleman has so constantly urged from the Box opposite. For our part, we intend to wind up the Docks Executive as soon as we have an opportunity of doing so.
I now pass to the Road Passenger Executive. The Docks Executive, with all its limitations, is a serious body seeking to do a serious job, but the Road Passenger Executive is a purely frivolous assembly. It has no executive functions whatsoever. It merely costs £25,000, which is four times what it cost in 1949. If it has a task, it is supposed to be what is called "a planning or scheming body." It is said here that it is supposed to report on the best acquisition procedure. Fortunately, none of its schemes has so far been accepted. I say, "fortunately," because it is an open and acknowledged policy of the British Transport Commission to put up the bus fares in this country as soon as it can lay its hand on the buses. That has been stated by the representatives of the Commission.

Mr. Popplewell: Private enterprise bus charges have been put up, too.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have no doubt that private enterprise bus fares have been put up. but not as a deliberate policy in order to subsidise something else, which is the acknowledged procedure of the British Transport Commission. If by -any chance these schemes did come to fruition and municipal bus companies were seized from the great cities of this country, we intend to return them to municipal ownership.

Mr. Keenan: Would the Opposition return the buses to the Liverpool Corporation? [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not catch what I said.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, I did not. The hon. Gentleman can tell me afterwards. So far, the Road Passenger Executive has had no particular impact upon British travel whatsoever. We are told in the Report that the Executive are keeping in

touch with events abroad, particularly in France. I have no objection to anybody keeping in touch with events in France. I hope to do the same myself in two weeks' time. We have reached the point when this idyllic existence of the Road Passenger Executive must cease. This body must follow the Docks Executive into the limbo of forgotten things.
I turn to the Hotels Executive. Some hon. Members may not have got as far as the Hotels Executive. I did, but not without difficulty. I see in the opening paragraph that this Executive proudly announce that they have opened the first nine holes of the Ailsa golf course. Apart from that, I find the extraordinary truism that the re-opening of a number of hotels has increased the revenue of the Executive. How on earth could it have done anything else? I do not find very much beyond that. The Report contains the usual, no doubt well-founded, charges against the Government's treatment of the hotel industry generally, connected with the Catering Wages Act and all that.
Then, finally, Lord Hurcomb says that the position in which the Commission's enterprises find themselves is not singular. I do not know what he regards as "singular." It may be that he cannot think in less than millions. The fact is that the Hotels Executive turned a deficit in 1949 of no less than £47,000—I mean before they had paid a penny in interest—into a deficit in 1950 of £190,000. They did not have any trouble about putting charges up if they had wanted to increase them. I should have thought that that was a fairly singular achievement. Any private body which set about its job in that way would be in the Bankruptcy Court by now. I think it is a remarkable achievement that this Executive have kept out.
This Hotels Executive cost £166,000. I have dealt with three Executives, and I hope I have disposed of them satisfactorily. They represent half a million pounds' worth of "top hamper" on the transport industry. I think it is a good thing that we should clear them out of the way. That is what we intend to do. I have not yet mentioned the Transport Commission itself, not because I think it should be ignored but because I wish to deal with its policy presently. There is a good deal of pruning to be done there.
I see from the Report that the Commission have 38 persons engaged on public relations and only 13 engaged on research. That seems a rather remarkable contrast. If the Commission had a rather better story to tell, they might require fewer people that try to tell it. However, I will leave them for the present and I will turn—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."]—there is a lot more I could say about it—to my central theme, which will probably form the central theme of the debate, the very much more formidable problem of the embargoes which have had to be imposed in the early months of this year, the dangers of the coming winter, the substantial losses which have been incurred by the British Transport Commission and the whole question of the collapse of the road-and-rail charges scheme.
The financial side is serious. I propose to deal with it, but what is equally serious is the increasing difficulty in which the Transport Commission find themselves on the operational side. Their primary job, after all, is to accept, carry and deliver traffics, and the real tragedy is not simply that they are losing money but that they are refusing goods and losing money at the same time. For a period which stretched well into the summer, there were widespread embargoes which affected the export drive, re-armament and the whole trade and commerce of this country, piled up goods in factories, slowed production and caused every kind of frustration throughout the whole economic system.
I agree wholeheartedly with a speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), the other evening in which he dealt admirably with the subject. This is much more than a matter of day-to-day administration. It is something which goes to the root of our transport policy. It is also much more than the question of the summer services. I shall not tease the Minister about the summer services, but I always regarded Messrs. Biff and Buff as ridiculous characters. When they were put forward to apologise for the cutting off of the first half of the summer services, they were pathetic, and I hope that they have been withdrawn before they have to apologise for the cutting off of the second half of the summer services as well.
This matter affects the whole of the freight traffic. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that on 19th and 20th June no fewer than 254 freight trains had to be cancelled. That was in mid-summer, and if we get into that condition in midsummer one has to think carefully about the sort of situation in which we may find ourselves when the winter comes along. All of us ought to consider what ought to be done next winter. I hope the Minister will make a full and frank statement today about his appreciation of the position.
There is one thing that I hope he will not do, and that is trot out the efficiency figures of the British Transport Commission and the railways. I shall not take up time in dealing with those figures now. I could do so. I believe that the statisticians have set out to prove much too much. Accepting all the technical efficiency that we have—I give British railways credit for very high efficiency—it did not prevent a breakdown in the early months of 1951, and unless something is done about it, it will not prevent a breakdown in the winter of 1951–52.

Mr. Monslow: All who are associated with the transport industry are conscious of this. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the positive measures he would employ to deal with it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have only just started. I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman if he thinks I am approaching my peroration. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, said the other evening, the key to the problem is manpower. One or two difficult questions have to be asked and answered about manpower. The railways are short of certain grades of men in certain vital places, and we have to face that problem. I want to ask some questions of the Minister.
First, are we making the maximum use of the men who are already in the railway industry? I know that raises controversial issues, such as lodging turns and overtime work. Those issues were raised when the railway wage settlement was made a considerable time ago and they were remitted by the Government to the industry to discuss and to try to work out a solution. I am not saying


that efforts have not been made on both sides to work out a solution. Some of the statements I have read from speeches by Mr. Franklin lately seem to me to be both wise and courageous, but I do not think that anything has really been done about the matter. At any rate it has not been brought to my notice that anything has yet been done. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some information upon that subject, and I hope that hon. Members opposite, many of whom are very well qualified to speak on the subject, will have an opportunity of doing so in the course of the debate.
Second, there is the question of the call-up. I have read the statement on the subject made by the right hon. Gentleman and also the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was a little more optimistic than the Ministry of Labour about something being done on that matter. I do not think anybody could possibly ask for the overall exemption of all railwaymen from call-up—I do not think anybody on any side of the House of Commons would ask for that—but if the presence of certain key men in vital spots next winter will make the difference between the British Railways having endless hold-ups or otherwise, it would be a major blunder if something were not done about it—and done about it soon.
No doubt there are many decisions which will have to await the autumn but this is not one of them. We have to take that decision quickly if it is to be effective. It is no good waiting until the emergency is upon us and then trying to solve something very quickly. That is no way to deal with it. A decision upon that matter has to be made. I know that it affects defence policy generally, I know that it affects other industries besides transport, and I know, probably not all the difficulties, but most is no way to deal with it. A decision on the topic must be made. If it is not made and something goes wrong, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he and the Government have received ample warning from both sides of the House of Commons.
Another matter on the operational side is coal. Whether we import American coal or not will make the whole difference to our transportation problems. It

is not the responsibility directly of the right hon. Gentleman but he knows the transport difficulties of this age. If the Government are going to import American coal, they had much better import it now. It is no good putting an additional traffic upon a system which is on the verge of breaking down at the moment when it is on its peak loads. That would be a crazy way of doing it. This is another decision which cannot await the autumn. I hope that on both these matters the right hon. Gentleman will impress on his colleagues, as hon. Members opposite have sought to impress on him—I give them full credit for that—the urgency of a decision on these matters. So much for the operational side. I put it first because I think it is the most urgent.
I now come to the question of finance. The Transport Commission now have an accumulated loss of £40 million, which is a very great deal of money. We must all direct our minds to what can be done to stop that continuing drain. There is one suggestion not contained in the Report which is widely canvassed in the country, namely, that we should solve the problem somehow by fiddling with the interest rates on British Transport Stock.
I do not know whether anybody in the House is prepared to defend that argument. I imagine not, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will use their best endeavours in all the various spheres in which they exercise their influence to see that that argument is not advanced. I shall not meet it now; hon. Members opposite can meet it, for they know just as well as I do what nonsense it is. It serves rather to blur the issue and distract our minds from the real difficulties and dangers to which we must direct our minds.
I turn, therefore, to Lord Hurcomb's solution, which at any rate has the merit of simplicity. He says that, in a rapidly changing world, we cannot keep pace with all these price increases. The remedy, he says, is for British Railways to be able to adjust their charges as quickly as prices are rising round them. But he produces a formidable list of difficulties with which he has to contend.
One of the difficulties is the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Hurcomb finds it awfully difficult to keep pace with him. Chancellors have taken out of this industry in the last three years £9 million in fuel tax—that is a


quarter of the total accumulated loss. It is a formidable sum and it does not seem to be quite in keeping with everything that the Chancellor is saying these days. If there is one way of forcing up charges in this country, it is to increase the financial difficulties of this great industry.
However, Lord Hurcomb says that on this and other matters we must have greater flexibility and greater freedom—we have to put up the charges faster—the trouble is due to all the delays. Well, he has done pretty well; he cannot complain. He has increased the freight charges by 28 per cent., and the passenger fares are going up; there is an inquiry going on; the London fares are going up and, in regard to the road industry, he has had a free market there. Without let or hindrance he has put on increases of 60 and 100 per cent. but "Faster! Faster!" he always cries.
Whenever I look at the present head of the British Transport Commission—for whom I have a great affection even if I am not entirely in agreement with his policy—I am reminded irresistibly of Tenniel's delightful drawings of the Red Queen in "Alice Through the Looking Glass." Readers of that book will remember the incident where the Red Queen takes Alice by the hand and they tear through the countryside with the Red Queen saying, "Faster! Faster!" Eventually they come to a standstill, and Alice finds herself sitting under the same tree from which she started. She says, "It is curious. In my country, if you run very fast for a long time, you generally get somewhere." "Oh," says the Red Queen, "what a slow sort of country. Here it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place."
I find that Lord Hurcomb has more resemblance to the Red Queen than merely a facial one. However fast he puts up the charges, he always ends in roughly the same position—losing the public money at somewhere between £25 and £50 a minute. But let me say to the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness that we would hesitate a long time before we were prepared to grant to the British Transport Commission, in the exercise of its vast monopoly powers, greater freedom and flexibility in the putting up of charges.
It is amazing what monopolies can do. I have many examples but I will give just one. It was given to me yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and it concerns fishermen in the North of Scotland. I choose it because I suppose that no class of person has been harder hit than the fishermen in the North of Scotland by increases in freight charges in recent months. An enterprising firm up there hit upon the idea of shipping lobsters to the South after taking off the shells up North and turning them into fish meal. It was obviously lighter to shift the meat to the South without the heavy shell. That sort of thing can make all the difference between employment and unemployment in the North of Scotland.
The day before yesterday my hon. Friend got a telegram saying that after three years trading the railway companies had decided to alter the category of Sinclair Fisheries goods from fish traffic to that of delicatessen, thereby altering the rates from an average price of 13s. per cwt. to 31s. 4d. per cwt., both in the company's risk; and that the increased price was an increased levy of £1,200 per annum, which simply killed this business.
That is the sort of thing which a monopoly can do. It is the sort of thing which anybody in competition would not dare do for a single instant. I hope very much that we can get this put right. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with it today, but to look into it. However, I say that it would be wrong if we were to accept flexibility and freedom in charging policy by some body which has such absolute control as the railways have at the present time over long-distance transport.
Our answer on that matter is plain. As long as the right hon. Gentleman has a monopoly and claims a monopoly, so long he must have the controls which go with a monopoly. Let him abandon that monopoly in some degree, as we have often invited him to do and then, and then only, are we prepared on this side of the House to concede the freedom and the flexibility which would undoubtedly be of great advantage to the transport industry.
The truth is that the whole basis upon which the Transport Act, 1947, was framed has now broken down and has been abandoned. Under the Transport


Act the road-rail charges scheme was to be drawn up within two years. That charges scheme was to be alike the major weapon of integration and the major safe- guard for the consumer. That was the basis of the Act. There were many arguments about it, there were many speeches made about it, pamphlets were written on the principles upon which a charges scheme ought to be drawn up, and others about how the industry could be integrated. It was said to be "vital," "urgent," "supremely necessary"—I quote from various speeches I have read upon the subject. But nothing happened and, at the end of that two years, a further two years were granted. The further two years expire on 6th August next, and it is now 31st July.
What has happened to that charges scheme? I will tell the right hon. Gentle- man, although I expect he has been told already. It is dead. It will never see the light of day. As a matter of fact, the cat was let half out of the bag in the Report on page 26, as follows:
… it is improbable that any such scheme can at present lay down a detailed basis for road haulage. …
The only things wrong with that sentence are the words "improbable," "present," and "detailed." The truth is, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it perfectly well, that they have dropped the road-rail charges scheme. I have no doubt it is the course which the right hon. Gentleman will adopt this afternoon, because it is the practice of the House of Commons to announce publicly that a scheme has gone so that we can all turn our minds to what can be put in its place.
I invite the attention of the House to the situation which this has created. Let us contemplate it, for example, in the case of the British Road Services, who hold today a monopoly of all long-distance road haulage in this country. What a tragedy that industry is! They took over hundreds of profitable firms against the wishes of the men who were running them, running them with profit to themselves and service to the community. They turned those profitable businesses into a vast concern which last year lost £1 million of public money before they had paid one penny piece in interest on the assets they had filched. That is the position.
The basis of that acquisition was that a charges scheme should be put up. But

there is to be no charges scheme, and what Lord Hurcomb and the British Transport Commission are claiming in this Report—I hope the Minister will not claim it—is that they should seek to recoup those losses by an unlimited right to raise charges against the consumer. The sky's the limit. To be able to discriminate between one business or industry and another business or industry is a flagrant abuse of monopoly power.
With all the propaganda that they have put out about monopoly, I cannot conceive that the party opposite will support a solution of that kind. Would they dare to come here and say, "Well, we thought we would have some checks to this monopoly but we now find it is too difficult to have them, so we want the monopoly without the checks." If they say that, it will put paid to a good deal of their party propaganda in the country.
I say, in conclusion, that the right hon. Gentleman has a formidable case to answer. He has to do more this time than just explain the accumulated losses of the British Transport Commission, serious as they are. He has to deal with the very real danger of a transport breakdown in the coming winter, a danger which will become an eventuality unless some action is taken within the next few weeks. He has to deal with the situation in which the whole basis of the policy hitherto pursued by the British Transport Commission has been found wanting and is now openly abandoned by the men who put it up.
Our policy upon this is quite plain, and I shall state it now, quite shortly. We intend, to start with, to abolish the ridiculous restriction of a 25 miles' limit upon the private road haulier. At a time when this country is short of transport, there could be no more idiotic solution than to impose a 25 miles' limit upon the road haulier. We are not suffering from too much transport. Next winter we may be desperately suffering from too little transport, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman and his associates to stop trying to legislate for some situation which may have existed in 1932 but certainly will not exist in 1952.
We propose also to give an opportunity to those who have been driven out of the business to come back into that business. We propose to re-organise publicly-owned transport—the railways,


publicly-owned road haulage, and the canals—in regional boards of a size at which there is some possibility of finding some body big enough to run them. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that one of the biggest dangers into which the party opposite are running is in over-rating the number of men they have, or who are available, anywhere who can run the mammoth-sized industries which they set up.
We propose to wind up the functional executives because in the system which we propose to set up we can see no very useful purpose which they would serve. In that more competitive atmosphere, we propose to give to the railway companies a much greater degree of flexibility and freedom, a degree of flexibility and freedom which is tolerable in circumstances Of some competition but utterly intolerable in circumstances of monopoly.
The right hon. Gentleman may agree or disagree with that policy, and he will have an opportunity of saying so tonight, but there is one thing on which hon. Members on all sides ought to agree: the present policy has failed. It has finished. It has been abandoned by the very men who put it up. It is for the right hon. Gentleman either to step in and produce a policy of his own, or to step out and give us a chance.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: I listened with the greatest possible care to the speech of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), and it surprises me that in the Report, a formidable document of 446 pages, he has been unable to find a single redeeming feature. The Report is more courageous than its predecessors and a little firmer in tone. Successful features of the year's working are modestly recorded and the difficulties that have to be overcome are made perfectly plain. But many of the difficulties are the responsibilities of Parliament, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will secure the assent of the House to any proposal he may make to facilitate the work of the Commission.
The Editor of "Modern Transport" rendered the Railway Executive a great service in publishing in booklet form a series of articles written by members of

the Railway Executive describing their activities and the task they are attempting. Hon. Members will no doubt have seen these articles, but if not, I hope they will try to get copies, for they will be found very useful indeed.
An equally interesting, but more critical, article was published in "Progress," the official organ of Unilever, Limited. It was written, I gather, by Mr. A. G. Marsden, the transport adviser of that organisation. Mr. Marsden postulates the question: "Britain's transport—service or burden?"
I do not accept all his conclusions, but he is certainly right in his contention, which I pass to the hon. Member for Monmouth, when he says:
We have emerged from the Railway age to the Transportation Age. I hold strongly the view that a first essential to any satisfactory progress in our transport affairs is to decide the position of railways in the new world.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Has this gentleman any relationship to driver Marsden, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) in an earlier debate?

Mr. Morris: Mr. Marsden goes on to say:
The processes of evolution apply as much to transport as to other forms of human activity, and so long as change is resisted so will a country be denied the full benefits which a flexible transport system, in all its forms. could and should provide.
That seems to me to be a perfectly sound argument, and is the sole reason for the appointment of the British Transport Commission. It is the very task to which they are now applying themselves.
But what is hindering the Commission? Let us turn to paragraph 47 of the Report, which says:
The Commission's transport system is practically alone among the industrial and commercial organisations of this country in that it has little latitude for increasing its own charges. The charges can normally be increased only as a result of public inquiries in the nature of litigation which may be prolonged far beyond the date when the need for increased charges becomes clear.
Why maintain these restrictions in the field of transport? If the secret of success is free enterprise, why not give to the B.T.C. the freedom to regulate their charges like any other industry? The Railway Executive have to earn about £330 million per annum and to maintain


a staff of 625,000. The deficit of 1950 might well have been avoided altogether had the adjustment in charges which was eventually made been authorised a little earlier. This is pointed out in paragraph 56 of the Report.
I now turn briefly to one or two of the observations by the hon. Member for Monmouth regarding charges. He suggested that the Railway Executive were asking for uncontrolled power and liberty to increase their charges in any manner they liked and to do so faster, faster and faster. But the request of the Commission in the Report is for a scheme of public control over the general levels of fares and charges which is both speedy and flexible in operation. Public control is what they ask for, and something which is speedier and more flexible of working. They ask also for the introduction of new bases of charges for transport services which will recognise this aspect over a wide field.
The speech of the hon. Member was more significant for what he left out than for what he put in. In a few eloquent words he dismissed the Docks Executive, the Road Passenger Executive, and the Hotels Executive, but he did not suggest what he would put in their place or how he would cater for any of those bodies. I presume, however, that the hon. Member agrees that these services must still be maintained. He ridiculed the road passenger service, but he did not say that the Road Passenger Executive had been obstructed on every hand by organised opposition and that their slowness was due to the over-generous terms of the 1947 Act.
Because the Government were so fair and so anxious to do justice to the road passenger transport owners throughout the country, they made provision for certain machinery through which appeals could be made. That provision, however, is being used as obstruction. In fact, threats have been made by privately-owned passenger companies that they will not only go the whole hog, but will do everything possible to prevent the law from being implemented for the benefit of the public.
A suggestion was made about the use of increased fares to subsidise other forms of transport services. I happen to be associated with some bus services in South Wales which were recently given power to increase their fares on the

ground that things were getting so difficult. Shortly after the increase had been granted, a dividend was declared at 14 per cent. Is it right and proper that a 14 per cent. dividend should be declared at the expense of the travelling public? The transport service is a service and ought not to be used for merely speculative purposes.
The physical resources of the Railway Executive are so limited, due to the neglect of the war years and to difficulties of today, that it is absolutely impossible, unless the Government come to their aid, to cope with the increasing traffic that is the result of full employment. I can well recall the position in South Wales when it was a simple matter to move the traffic. The chimneys were smokeless and the people of South Wales were walking the streets living on unemployment pay. The Margam Steel Works, which now use 20,000 tons of coal per week, were unheard of in those days. Now, because of the Government's full employment policy and because of the increase in trading activity throughout the country, the railways are being asked to cope with increased traffic, but without the necessary facilities and great resources they require.
In view of the fact that many hon. Members also wish to speak, I shall confine myself to the four suggestions made by the Commission. There is
the provision of adequate resources, financial and physical, to replace and re-equip and remodel the transport system; a greater willingness to accept changes, whether in conditions of work or in types of service or in proposals to integrate the Commission's services and to avoid costly delay in action on each proposal for re-organization.
That is a suggestion which must be applied to both employer and employee and to the Commission as a whole. The third suggestion is a system of public control
which is both speedy and flexible in operation.
Finally, there is
the introduction of new bases of charge for transport services which will recognize that over a wide field the Commission's services are not a monopoly and that the ordinary principles of competitive business must therefore be allowed a greater place in the fixing of charges in detail.
If those principles are adopted, the work of the Commission will be facilitated very much and it will enable us to get a better transport system throughout the country.
There are two other points to which I wish to refer. The first is that the Commission have suggested a superannuation scheme for the salaried grades. Quite frankly, that scheme, as now framed, is quite unacceptable. It imposes too great a penalty upon the employee and makes us wonder why facilities comparable to those given by the coal, electricity and gas boards are not available to the employees of the transport service. We want to make it abundantly clear that unless some improvement is made we shall have to take steps to get a better scheme altogether.
The second point is that much of the trouble on the railways is due to two factors, shortage of manpower—deferment from call-up will be dealt with by other hon. Members—and, secondly—even the Report indicates this—the reluctance to give railway employees and transport employees generally proper rates of wages and salaries. The Report indicates that they come at the end of the queue on nearly every occasion. It is pointed out that there have been increases in almost every other form of industry preceding those given to the railwaymen. Railwaymen are disgruntled and disappointed. They will not be content to remain at the end of the queue longer. They have revealed greater restraint than any other section of workers in industry and everyone recognises that, given improved conditions, they are a fine body of men who will redeem the transport service from the chaos in which it was left by private control.
I hope that subsequent speakers will deal with the history of financial chaos on the railways prior to nationalisation. After 40 years service, I can never remember when the railway system was not in grave financial difficulties. Over and over again the Government came to its help and the only provision possible was Government control. If these long-term policies are applied and the Executives are given a proper opportunity, we shall still have the greatest transport system in the world.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The, hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) started by referring to the contents and form of the Report and I wish to join with him in agreeing that the Report is highly informative. It is a very full

Report. In spite of the fact that it is a very full Report, there are necessarily some matters about which we are left in doubt; and about that I do not complain, because I think that, even if the Report were twice as long, there would still of necessity be some matters which called for explanation. Perhaps where I might complain is that we do not have the opportunity of obtaining the full explanation when we need it.
I wish to deal with two other points mentioned by the hon. Member for Swansea, West. He referred to the shortage of manpower on the railways and to the results which full employment has had on railway traffic. We are all familiar with and deplore the tragedy of unemployment; but the Government, which the hon. Member supports, will have to be very careful or we shall have a further tragedy, which will be the tragedy of full employment instead of the tragedy of unemployment.
If these railway embargoes continue and become intensified, compared with the terrible state they were in from February to June this year, the economic system of this country and the feeding of our 50 million people will break down. It is as serious as that, in my opinion. So when the hon. Member glories in full employment, as we all do, we have to remember that it should be the duty of the Government to see that manpower is not wasted in any way over which the Government can exercise some supervision.
In relation to British transport, and more particularly the railways, there are some figures which are very appropriate to this part of the problem. In 1937 the locomotive crews of the railways amounted to 74,000 men. In 1948, the first year of nationalisation, they were well above that figure—98,000 men. Now they have gone down to 90,000 men, but that is still well in advance of the figure for 1937. In order to compare the figures for 1951 with the figures for 1937, we have to make certain allowances. We have to make allowances for holidays with pay and various factors of which the Minister has reminded us from time to time.
The Commission say that we require a lift of 12½ per cent. in order to take into account those changing conditions and, if we allow a further 3 per cent., because


the figures are not precisely comparable, we find that the position is as follows. Taking into consideration the total comparison, so long as there are 15½ per cent. more in 1951 compared with 1937, then there should be enough locomotive crews to do the job. In fact, on the figures, comparing 74,000 men in locomotive crews in 1937 with 90,000 men in 1951, there is an increase of 22 per cent. In other words, the 1951 figure is 122 per cent. of the 1937 figure. So that rather than there being a shortage of locomotive men, which would cause the embargoes, what we must accept is that there is either a bad distribution of them or a bad utilisation of them, to use an ugly modern word.

Mr. Collick: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he talks of train crews and give' figures. I am a little uncertain whether he is clear about the terms he is using when he mentions a figure of 79,000 crews. Perhaps he will explain more fully what he means.

Mr. Renton: These figures, so far as the recent figures are concerned, are taken from the Report; and I understand that they include engine drivers, firemen and train guards. That is the position. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge those figures and can give more precise figures, it is up to him to do so when he makes his speech, but those are the figures which I have extracted.

Mr. Collick: I should like to have the authority for them if the hon. Gentleman can give it.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman shall have it in due course if he wishes. Of course, one does not take a note of every paragraph and every page from which one extracts information, but it shall be forthcoming if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West, cannot explain away these embargoes by merely saying that they are the unfortunate results of a fortunate state of affairs, namely, full employment. It is a matter which we cannot complacently accept; and the Minister, as I maintain, speaking as the exponent of the Commission's policy and difficulties, must explain these matters to us.
Another point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, West, arises out of the Commission's desire to be able to increase their freight charges more quickly, and I presume also their other charges as well. Presumably the Minister does not agree with the Commission on that matter, because last year, when he was sent a recommendation by the Transport Tribunal that there should be certain substantial increases in freight charges, instead of granting those increases with the rapidity which the Commission obviously desired, the Minister oat on them for many months. I do not know what the Commission had to say about it; but it is quite clear that, if monopoly conditions are being granted, or if conditions which amount to a monopoly over three-quarters of the Commission's activities are granted, then there has to be full and adequate safeguard for the trading and travelling public.
It is quite ridiculous for the Commission to suggest that they should be allowed to meet the blind economic forces, to which Socialism is supposed to be impervious, by the way, that they should be allowed to counter the fiscal policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by getting an increase in freight charges through some quick administrative process. If they do so, that will have the result of intensifying those blind economic forces and the mistakes of the Chancellor's fiscal policy.
I turn from the arguments of the hon. Member for Swansea, West, to make some further comments upon these matters. May I say, without disrespect to the Chair, that I am very glad to have caught your eye on this occasion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because, although I studied both the previous Reports very carefully indeed and attempted to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, along with many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was unable to do so. But third time lucky! I would express regret that two hon. Members opposite, whose contributions are always heard with great interest, are not here on this occasion, and I am sure the House will join with me in expressing to them our hope for a quick recovery from their illnesses. I refer to the hon. Members for Perry Bar (Mr. Poole) and Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), both of whom have made useful and spirited contributions to transport debates in the past.
With regard to Parliamentary control, these debates on the annual Reports are supposed to be an example of Parliament sitting as the grand inquisition of the Realm. It takes the place of the shareholders' meetings. We have a right to criticise and to inquire, and we have a right to answers to our questions. I do not make any complaint about our opportunity to criticise and inquire; but I feel bound to point out that these occasions have a serious limitation in the nature of things, for which the Minister is not to blame. After speeches from both sides of the House for something over five hours, after we have raised many serious points and expressed doubts about matters in the Report, the Minister will have only 30 minutes in which to reply: and it is impossible for him to do so.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): That does not mean that those comments are not studied subsequently and have their ultimate influence on policy.

Mr. Renton: That may very well be so. Those points may have their influence upon policy, and I think this year's Report is some indication of the fact that they do. I grant that. But at the same time, hon. Members opposite must make up their minds about this question of Parliamentary control. If it is to be just an opportunity for us to let off steam, so to speak, in the hope that somebody will absorb some of the steam and not get indigestion from it, then hon Members are entitled to be satisfied if they feel so. But that is not what we were given to hope when Parliament, governed by a large Socialist majority, thrust nationalisation upon us. One of the principal arguments—in fact, one might say the principal argument—in favour of nationalisation was that the whole of the transport industry would be subject to regular, thorough Parliamentary scrutiny and control: and we are not getting it.
With regard to Parliamentary Questions, which after all are possibly one of the best ways in which Parliament can serve a useful purpose in helping the country, I would refer to that part of the Report in which the Commission mention that Parliament sat for 27 weeks in 1950 and that during that time 77 Parliamentary Questions were answered. I consider that is a very poor average;

77 Questions in 27 weeks is something like three Questions a week. Speaking for myself, there have been some weeks in which I have tried to put down more than three Questions myself and all of them have been rejected. I must not complain of the reasons why they have been rejected, but I suggest that it is for the House as a whole—this is not a party matter—to consider carefully whether we are given enough opportunity to use our democratic right to improve the affairs of this industry by means of Parliamentary Question and answer.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose—

Mr. Renton: I have given way quite a lot, and this is the first opportunity I have had of speaking in these debates.

Mr. Hughes: Is not that argument a criticism of the Chair and of the Table, and not of the Minister or of the British Transport Commission?

Mr. Renton: No. I carefully covered myself by saying that I was not complaining of the fact that Questions had been refused. I say, with all respect, that Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy-Speaker are in the hands of the House. That is a well-known fact about our Parliamentary constitution.
It is for the House to consider whether or not the Minister of Transport is playing his full part in the democratic control of the transport industry. After all, his performance compares unfavourably with that of Ministers responsible for other nationalised industries, and the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), will not dispute that. It may well be that this question of complete Parliamentary control is insoluble. It may well be that Members on both sides of the House would be so divided on this matter—for example, on the question whether a Select Committee should investigate the problem—that we should not get agreement about it.
I would, however, remind hon. Members once more that the essence of nationalisation should be, but has not so far been, democratic Parliamentary control. It is no use hon. Gentlemen saying that we are now getting more control than we used to have before nationalisation. That is just not so. I remember that, in the period between


1945 and 1949, it was much easier to get a Question down to the same Minister of Transport about the railways than it is now.

Mr. Barnes: Too easy then.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman says that it was too easy then. Perhaps he himself has had some part in our arriving at the peculiar state of affairs which we have now reached.
The Report shows, as we all know, that things are not well with the railways. The public want to know how much of the trouble is due to nationalisation; how much is due to the blind economic forces; how much is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and how much is due to the failure of management. I dismiss the last possibility at once. I do not consider that the able men who are trying to run our transport industry are at fault. I lay the blame on the task which has been imposed upon them. I blame the system contrived by the Transport Act, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) mentioned, is rapidly showing itself to be one which is incapable of fulfilment.
That the blind economic forces, aided perhaps by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have made it difficult for the Commission, is pretty obvious. Undoubtedly the Commission are victims of inflation. But, bearing in mind the importance of the Commission and their services in our economic life, I do not think that the fact that they are victims of inflation entitles them to make the inflation even worse by immediately trying to counter it by increasing their charges.
The real trouble is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth pointed out in his brilliant speech, that integration is a failure. I agree that the railways would have had a difficult time even if there had been no nationalisation, but I cannot believe that conditions would have been quite as bad as they are. Opinions may differ on whether Socialism has made the conditions of the railways better or worse; but the point which I wish to stress is that Socialism has so far provided no solution whatever to those difficulties.
Obviously something must be done. Freight embargoes will ruin this Kingdom. As for passenger services, they should be a valuable source of revenue. I should have thought that, in times of inflation, passenger services should, if anything, be a source of rising revenue. Passenger services are a necessity to the community—sometimes a pleasant necessity. But under nationalisation the passenger services are neither a source of revenue, nor are they even available to the extent that they were in the past and should be now.
From the public point of view it is most unfortunate that passenger services are regarded as a sort of public luxury which must be scaled down in times of economic difficulty. That, clearly, seems to be the attitude of the Commission. We must face the fact that in 1950 passenger train receipts were about £5,500,000 less than they were in the previous year, in spite of some increase in fares. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth pointed out last year that the railways had already priced themselves out of the market. That remains true. The average citizen, which the Minister once professed himself to be—before he became a Minister—just cannot afford the high fares, even though his income, as Socialists so often remind us, has frequently increased, owing to inflationary processes.
I want to put forward a suggestion which is not a new one, but is one which I do not think has been considered sufficiently. It is that the railways would lose less money if they charged less for their passenger services. My argument is based upon the very simple proposition that the average train can carry about 1,000 passengers and that it is better to have it full, or nearly full, with people paying, say, 10s. for the journey, than only two-thirds full with people paying 12s. 6d. That is simple arithmetic, and one could multiply the examples.
But, of course, the accountants produce wonderful tables, use their slide rules and so on. They say that it does not work that way and that it cannot be done. I believe that it can be done. There are many railway enthusiasts in this country who have also been working with their slide rules. They write to the newspapers from time to time. There are experts on railway management, many of whom take


a completely different view from that taken by the accountants to the Commission. I suggest that this matter is deserving of second-thoughts and that it might help considerably to solve the problems of the railways.
I pass to the Road Haulage Executive. They again have a deficit this year of over £1 million after meeting their various and necessary charges. They also had a deficit in 1949; but then we were told, "They have not had a chance to get going; they have only just acquired their vehicles; give them a chance and then we shall see." Now they are well under way. By the end of 1949 they had already acquired nearly 35,000 vehicles, and they acquired only another 4,800 in 1950. They are well under way, yet they are still losing money.
This is a section of the industry which was supposed to be profitable. Indeed, when my hon. Friends were supporting the Transport (Amendment) Bill, they were told quite specifically in another place, though the Minister was not so imprudent as to say so in this House, that what they were trying to do was to de-nationalise the profitable part of the industry. It has turned out that, in the clumsy hands of the nationalisers, it is not profitable, after all; and that is very surprising indeed, because under private enterprise these 39,000 vehicles were known to be good money-makers. which contributed an immense amount in taxation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
If the House will bear with me for a few more simple calculations, I would say that if the Road Haulage Executive vehicles had been left in the hands of private enterprise, instead of having a deficit of over £1 million, they might very well have had a net profit of anything from £3 million to £6 million, after paying the 3 per cent. interest and after making a contribution to central charges.
I worked that out in this way. The total capital value of the vehicles and assets of the Road Haulage Executive—and this estimate is based on the Commission's own figures—is something well over £60 million. Under private enterprise, it was considered that a man was a complete mug if he did not earn at least 5 per cent. net on his capital, after paying the interest charges; 10 per cent. was a pretty ordinary kind of net profit:

while there were cases in which profits as high as 15 per cent. and even higher were earned. I remember that from my own pre-war experience in the traffic courts.
After paying the interest charges on this £60 million, and after paying the central fund charges, these 39,000 vehicles—or even not the whole of the 39,000, but just the 35,000 which the Commission had throughout the whole of the accounting period of 1950—would have earned approximately £3 million net if their net profits had been 5 per cent. and £6 million net if their net profits had been 10 per cent.; but, instead, they have scored a loss of £1 million. That is a pretty shocking state of affairs, and nationalisation is to blame—nationalisation with all its over-centralisation, the bureaucratic pyramid, the inflexibility of commercial practice and the red tape.
The Report—and, if the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me earlier wants the reference, I can now give it to him; it is in paragraph 158—does offer an explanation of this loss. Candidly, I think the explanation flimsy. It is one which does not impress, because it does not tell the whole story; and, in order that that part of the Report could have been completely candid, it should have mentioned that, as my hon. Friend said, before the Road Haulage Executive increased their charges by 7½ per cent. in order to meet the imposts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they had, in many cases—in fact, in most cases—increased their charges by anything from 30 to 100 per cent. immediately after nationalising the vehicles.
They made these increases immediately on acquisition because they thought that the private enterprise charges, which the vehicles had been earning before, were "unduly economic"; but, even if they were, they were nevertheless earning reasonable profits, and sometimes handsome profits, for their former owners, as well as some taxation for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know and understand the difficulties of the railways, but the position of the Road Haulage Executive is inexplicable, except for the reason which I have given, that is to say, nationalisation, with all the trouble that goes with it.
Judging the situation of the British Transport Commission as an ideological


experiment, as a financial exercise, or as a matter of practical efficiency—no matter by which of these tests it is judged—it is a continued failure, and we do not see any sign of this failure being turned into a success. I remember so well that, when he wound up his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Transport Bill, the Minister said that, given five years of power in this field of transport, the Labour Government would do more than the Tories had done in centuries.
Well, three years and seven months of that five years have already run out. The sands are running out very fast; and I do not see the slightest hope of that vain prophecy coming true, certainly not under the present set-up, not under a Socialist administration, not until the Transport Act has been radically amended and not until some prudent measures such as those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth have been adopted, backed up, as I am sure they will be, by the good will of the vast majority of the people now working in the transport industry, mostly under the Commission itself. We have to face the fact that they are disappointed, just as disappointed as Socialists must be now.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The speech of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), to which we have just listened, is a good example of the confusion which characterises many speakers on the other side, both in the House and in the country, when they talk about nationalisation.
The hon. Member devoted his time to discussing certain defects in the present British Transport Commission, and argued from that that the principle of nationalisation is a bad principle. He might just as well argue that, because there are some bad and wicked people calling themselves Christians, therefore Christianity is a failure. That is an obvious fallacy, and the kind of fallacy which I am sure hon. Members will not accept, nor will the country.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South) rose—

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear with me, I will give way in a few minutes, hut, first, he should hear my argument.
I wish to discuss the transport system to and from the north-east of Scotland, concerning which I have had considerable experience and a great deal of correspondence with the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, with fish merchants and consumers, with farmers and with many other persons who are interested and concerned in the transport system.
From Scotland, there are many criticisms of the transport system. One criticism is that it is unsatisfactory, as regards freight transport, in its timing, its cost and its distribution of commodities to the London markets, but I am sure that the House will not argue from that fact that, because the present set-up is not perfect in every particular, the principle of nationalisation is therefore wrong. It has nothing to do with it.
I regret to say that I shall have to point out what I regard as certain defects in the present administration, but they are defects which have nothing to do with the principle of nationalisation, and they are defects which can be remedied. Of the three to which I have referred, timing can be rectified by better time schedules and strict adherence to the schedules when they are settled. Costs can be rectified by flat rates for the transport of commodities all over this island, perhaps by an extension of the "taper" system and certainly by equal treatment for all parts of this island. Distribution to the London markets can be rectified by more and better organisation of the labour services available, and, above all, by more sympathetic administration of the organisation by those at the top.
All these defects can be remedied, but, in the long run, they can be remedied best in Scotland by the electrification of the Scottish Railways, by the vast hydroelectric power which is now being so rapidly harnessed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for the benefit of the people of Scotland. That these matters are urgent is evidenced by the various representations which have been made to me, and I shall refer to just one letter to indicate the kind of complaints which are being made.
The letter is dated 26th July and was sent by one of the great systems of road haulage to the Aberdeen Chamber of


Commerce. I shall quote one paragraph from it which says:
The chaotic conditions in King's Cross this morning led to a large portion of the Aberdeen traffic arriving too late at Billingsgate for today's sales, and having to be iced over until tomorrow. This reacted back to Aberdeen, where most merchants were advised, and, of course, could not buy any further supplies today. This not only meant the loss of a day's work to the merchants, but also a considerable loss to the trawl owners, as, consequently, prices slumped.
I would not trouble the House with that complaint if it were only an individual complaint, but it is typical and characteristic of many complaints not only from the fishing industry, but also from the agricultural industry. That letter does not stand alone. Earlier complaints which I have made to the Transport Commission, and the answers to them, suggest that this nationalised industry which should be administered sympathetically by administrators who believe in the principle of nationalisation is, in fact, being administered by administrators who are unsympathetic to nationalisation, who do not understand what is required, who cannot organise their staff, who do not understand the facts, and who cannot control the vast organisation which is under and ought to be under their control.
I am putting that strongly. I regret having to put it so strongly, but it is evidenced by another latter which is only one of several I have received from the Commission. The letter is dated 2nd July—this month—and I propose to quote two paragraphs from it to make clear the viewpoint of the Commission in relation to the work it has to carry out. The letter says:
The Railway Executive are doing everything possible to speed up the handling arrangements at King's Cross, but the labour situation there requires careful treatment.
No doubt the House will ask, why, then, does the Transport Commission not give it that careful treatment which will bring about a successful administration? The letter goes on:
We could not, however, accept the view that the difficulty is entirely due to a shortage of railway staff; it is a question of getting the existing gangs to adapt themselves to a different time-table of working.
Again, the House will, naturally, ask, why does not the Transport Commission, whose duty it is to organise these gangs,

organise its labour services? Why does it not do it effectively in the public interest? The letter continues:
On the question of bulking, it is true that this has operated to some degree for a considerable time, but our Executive believe that handling would be further simplified and speeded up by the complete merging of the cartage arrangements.
What does this letter mean? In my submission, it is a confession of incompetence on the part of the Transport Commission. It shows that the Commission cannot or will not organise their handling arrangements, cannot or will not plan the work of their staff, cannot or will not get their staff to work the plan so as to fit in with market times and thus put fish into the hands of the consumers in the South fresh and in the condition in which it ought to arrive. It is perfectly evident from all this that a change of management is indicated.

Mr. Boothby: Change of Government.

Mr. Hughes: That interruption again indicates that kind of person who argues that the principle of nationalisation is bad because a particular organisation is not well managed. That is a fallacy which will not commend itself to this House or to the country. I say that a change of management is indicated so that this important Commission can be managed by men who believe in nationalisation and who can make it a success.
Complaints relate, in the main, to essential freights affecting the food supply of the country—agricultural produce and fish. Aberdeen produces and distributes these essentials. I shall deal only with farm produce and fish in relation to cost and timing. In these the cow and the codling go hand in hand. They are the harvest of the land and the harvest of the sea. They are essential to the people of the South of this island, and, therefore, the people of the South have just as great an interest in good administration by the Transport Commission as have the industralists of the North.
Let us take farm produce first. It is not putting it too high to say that a high percentage of agricultural produce from the North of Scotland goes South by rail, road or coastwise shipping through Aberdeen, which is the pivotal transport centre. It would probably be true to say that 75 per cent. of that farm produce goes to


England generally, and that of that amount 25 per cent. probably comes to London. Some comes for human food, directly ready for consumption, and some for further production on farms in England and Wales. It comes in various forms—seed oats, seed potatoes, dairy cows, store cattle, calves, sheep and pigs. This is a big traffic, but so also is the fish traffic.
I have already referred to the fish industry and traffic. The daily quantities sent to London from the north of Scotland are enormous It is essential that the fish should reach the London markets early in good time for the market, fresh and otherwise in good condition. If it does not reach London promptly and in good condition it is a loss to the producers, the distributors and the consumers and to the country at large. This would tend to stamp out of existence valuable fishing communities productive in peace, courageous in war, and a great asset to the whole nation in both peace and war.
These essential commodities are the victims of an absurd and unethical freightage system which shows lack of sympathy with the idea of nationalisation, and lack of ability to make it succeed as it ought to succeed in the interest of all the people. By absurd and unethical transport freightage system I mean more than the actual charges. I mean the theory upon which they are based which involves unfair and unjust discrimination between port and port, between market and market, between Scotland and England.
I submit it is wrong that Scottish producers should be penalised by their geographical position. It is wrong that they should have to pay more for freight than do producers in the South. Parliament legislates for the whole of this island and it should legislate for it as a whole, otherwise there will be, as there is, unfair discrimination between Scotland and England in this freightage matter. The South takes benefits from the North, East and West. All should be treated equally and fairly.
National transport is a national service and should be so treated. Before nationalisation, transport was not run as a national service. It was run by private enterprise for profit, and without success. Now, as a nationalised transport, it is

primarily a national service like the Post Office, and it should be run as a national service like the Post Office. I have support for this sound and rational view from a somewhat surprising and unexpected source, namely a periodical called "Progress," the magazine of Lever Bros. and Unilever, Ltd. In its summer issue it carries an authoritative article by a Mr. Marsden, who is described as the transport advisor to that combine. He says:
Transport is a service, and its functions must not be confused with the fundamentally different functions of industry and commerce within a community. The latter create wealth, sustain the community financially and materially, and open up avenues for its development at home and abroad. All this creative force requires certain facilities or machinery for its successful operation and transport is one of these. It is not a primary industry and never will be. …
While, therefore, user and provider of transport may very properly be considered complementary—one providing the traffic and the revenue and the other the service—their functions and responsibilities differ fundamentally.
I do not wish to be taken as agreeing with Mr. Marsden in anything else, but I cite this paragraph from his article as showing that even he, the adviser of a big capitalist combine, takes the view I am advocating now that national transport should be, as it is and should be treated, a national service and nothing else. I therefore submit that the transport of essential commodities like food is a service and an essential service. All parts of the country should be treated equally for and by this essential service. Some parts should not be favoured and other parts penalised as they are today by their geographical position any more than senders of letters are favoured or penalised by the geographical position of the recipient.
This island, Scotland, England and Wales, is treated as a whole for the purposes of conscription, postage and pensions; and I suggest it should be treated as a whole for the essential service of food transport. The inland letter is no more and no less important than fresh food. Let us contrast the letter with the fresh food. Carriage of the letter is charged for by weight regardless of mileage. Fish and farm produce are doubly charged for by weight and by mileage. This, I submit, is irrational and unjust. A letter posted in London will be carried at the


same cost to Aldgate, Aberdeen or Aultgrishin; to Leicester, Lanark or Lerwick in Shetland.
The same rule should apply—weight only, not distance—on national railways for the essentials of life because the national railways are a national service just as much as the national Post Office is a national service. It would be high statesmanship for the Minister to take steps to make this change. It would do equity. It would secure justice and fair play to all parts of this Island.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask a question?

Mr. Hughes: I have nearly finished. If the hon. Member will ask his question at the end of my argument I promise that I will give way and will answer it.
As an immediate measure I suggest to the Minister that he should restore the flat rate for the carriage of farm produce and fish or, as an alternative, that he should extend the present "taper" system, whereby freight charges are stepped down after the 20th, 50th and 100th mile. I also suggest to the Minister that he should use the splendid hydro-electric power in Scotland to electrify the railways of Scotland. This would electrify not only the railways of Scotland, but would electrify the producers and consumers. It would electrify the whole country and provide a good deal of benefit. Now I will give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire. East (Mr. Boothby).

Mr. Boothby: I was only going to ask whether the hon. and learned Member's proposal related solely to fish and fresh perishable farm produce and not to any other article of produce in North Scotland, and if so why.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Member has asked that question because I thought I had made the answer abundantly clear during my speech. The reason why I say that national transport should be a national service to which my proposal should apply is because I think that food is an essential of life. Therefore, I say it should apply to all the essentials of life. It applies to conscription, to postage and to pensions and I do not see why, in the case of a national organisation like the transport organisation, it should not apply to the carriage of food, too. I hope that the hon. Member will

take the view that I have fairly faced his question and given him a direct answer.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Bevins: I have listened with very much interest to the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and I congratulate him on the critical vein he showed in his speech. I am quite sure his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture will take note of his criticisms.
I thought the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) was rather less than fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). He suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth had evaded the question of the docks and the problems of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, whereas, of course, my hon. Friend made it perfectly clear we consider that Executive to be a superfluous organisation which should be abolished straight away. I recognise, of course, that the Minister of Transport is not responsible for the problems of the docks.
It is a matter for the Minister of Labour, but it is worth pointing out—and this requires some emphasis—that His Majesty's Government have been in possession of the Leggett Docks Report, which made certain specific recommendations, for a matter of three or four months. Even now, the House has no idea as to how far the conversations with various interested parties have progressed or, indeed, whether conversations on a comprehensive basis are going on as regards all the ports in the country.
The attitude of my hon. Friends on these benches is perfectly clear. If we had the responsibility we should set about vigorously tackling this problem by doing away with the duality of trade union representation whereby a trade union leader represents his men on the one hand and, at the same time, is a member of the local organisation of the Dock Labour Board. We should try to bring some real human relationships into this industry and clear the wreckers out of our docks.

Mr. Keenan: Is the hon. Member not aware that the Leggett Report refers to the London docks and has nothing to do with the Railway Executive, who have no control over the London docks?

Mr. Bevins: If the hon. Member will read the Leggett Report he will, with his knowledge of Liverpool, quickly understand that many of their recommendations are obviously applicable to the port of Liverpool and, indeed, to the port of Manchester.
I have stated that this is not the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, but it is a responsibility of His Majesty's Government. If the hon. Member for Kirkdale would be good enough to read that section of the transport Report which deals with the Docks Executive he would realise the relevance of what I am saying.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West, referred also to the financial position of the railways of this country between the wars. He went out of his way to insinuate that between the wars the railway companies of this country never made any money, that they were virtually bankrupt and that the Railway Executive could, therefore, hardly be blamed if they also succeeded in making quite considerable losses.
I propose to deal with that point in some detail in a few moments, but I wish, at this juncture, to make one simple observation. One of the troubles in any approach to our nationalised industries is that the ownership of them is so diffused over the community that nobody feels any real responsibility for them. It is chiefly because of that that the country as a whole does not demand those exacting standards of efficiency which we find in so many other spheres of our commercial and economic life.
I put it to the House that if hon. Members on both sides were to regard themselves as the sole shareholders of the Transport Commission, and if they had received last week, as important shareholders, the Annual Report of the Commission, they would have taken a very poor view indeed of it. Even hon. Members opposite, who believe in nationalisation would first try to discover whether the undertaking in which they were shareholders had been making a loss or a profit.
They would have seen at once that for three years in succession the B.T.C. have made a loss and in all probability will make a further loss, and probably a bigger one, in 1951. They would read this Report to try to ascertain the reasons

for these losses. They would discover the Report to be absolutely chockablock with ambiguities, equivocations and evasions—expressions such as. "It is not easy to quantify," which is used at least a dozen times in the course of the Report. Another favourite is, "It is extraordinarily difficult to compare this with that."
The second thing we should notice would be that the section of British transport which was prosperous until 1947 has this year, for the first time in our history, incurred a loss. It has incurred that loss, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth said, even before central charges are taken into account. This Report also includes in its balance sheet an item of £60 million for goodwill paid to the operators of road haulage vehicles before the latter were handed over to the Transport Commission. As a shareholder, I think that that asset should be wiped out of the balance sheet pretty, soon. It is obvious that it has already disappeared.
The next thing we should notice would be this curiously naive statement about taxation, where the Reports says, on page 203:
The Commission are liable to Income Tax in accordance with the ordinary rules applicable to trading concerns. …
That is perfectly true.
In view of the deficits shown on the Consolidated Net Revenue Account for the years to date, no charge has been made in the Consolidated Revenue Account in respect of Income Tax.
That is surely a glimpse of the obvious.
I would urge hon. Members opposite to ask themselves what would happen to the foundations of the welfare State of which they are so proud if the private sector of industry in this country as well as the nationalised sector conducted itself in this way. Where would be the financial support for the welfare State of which hon. Members are so proud?
I come to the question of the alleged plight of the railways in the years between the wars. This is important, because it is inevitably connected with the argument, which is sometimes put forward by members of the Labour Party, either that interest charges ought to be done away with altogether or repudiated or that they should be scaled down or, alternatively; should become a liability of the Treasury.
If it be true, as was suggested in the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, West, that the railways were losing money between the wars, if it be true that the railways constituted a "very poor bag of assets" when taken over, there might be some justification for the view of the extreme Left. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the expression used by his hon. Friend, who said that the railways were in a state of financial chaos between the wars.
At the annual conference of the Labour Party at Margate last year speaker after speaker advocated the repudiation or the scaling down of compensation. I remember taking a very modest part in the by-election in the Ormskirk constituency about six months ago. I can very well recall, in spite of the rather hopeful tone of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, a speech made on the succeeding evening by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who I am sorry is not present, in which she made it perfectly clear that she considered that no compensation whatever ought to be paid in respect of the railways.
It is equally true that when this subject was debated at Margate in October, 1950, the present Foreign Secretary did not object to repudiation on the grounds that it was immoral or anything of that kind. He pointed out that if the resolution were passed it would lead the party into much discredit and would be electorally embarrassing. That is the Tammany Hall psychology at its very best.
On the point as to whether the railways were in such financial chaos between the wars, what are the facts? Between the wars, from 1919 to 1938, the big railway, companies in this country paid an average of about 3.5 per cent. in interest or dividends on their issued capital. In the best year, in 1925, they paid 4.19 per cent.; in their worst year, 1932, they paid 2.57 per cent.
I agree that since they took over the railways the Labour Party have been trying to put across the propaganda that the railways always lost money. For instance, in a booklet issued to Parliamentary candidates at the last election, 'Transport House told them that ever since the First World War the finances of the

railways have been in a bad way. In 1919–20, they were told, the deficit was £41 million; in 1920–21 the deficit was £51 million, and both those sums were met by the taxpayer; in 1938 none of the railway companies paid any dividend on ordinary stock. That is what they were told. That is, after the railways have been nationalised. Before they were nationalised hon. Members opposite—

Mr. J. J. Robertson: That is very important. Will the hon. Gentleman give the date to which he is referring—the date after the railways were nationalised? Is he not confusing this with the period before nationalisation?

Mr. Bevins: The publication of the document from which I have been reading was in 1950, subsequent to the nationalisation of the railways. What I am trying to do is to emphasise that this was the propaganda of the post-nationalisation era when the pipe dreams were over and when hon. Members opposite were face to face with hard realities.
But before the railways were nationalised hon. Members opposite used to talk in a very different vein. Here, for instance, is a quotation which may be familiar to one hon. Member opposite who said:
What did they earn? Between 1921 and 1944 the total amount paid by the railways in interest and dividend (£981 million) was seven-eighths of the total railway capital.
In other words, the railway companies were making too much. In short, before the railways were taken over they were making profits which were too large, but once they had been taken over and put into the condition into which the Transport Commission have put them, it was discovered that, in fact, the railways had always been making losses.
His Majesty's Government cannot have it both ways. The fact of the matter is that all this talk about interest repudiation is completely irresponsible. Since nationalisation British Railways have had to pay more for their coal and more for every commodity and raw material they use, including their labour. The only overhead, if we can call it one, which has not risen since the railways were nationalised is the level of the interest charges themselves, and any suggestion that the level should be disturbed at all amounts to obvious and blatant theft.
All of us have a soft spot for railway trains, and I would admit to the right hon. Gentleman that during the past 12 months there has been a noticeable improvement in many main line services. I give that to him in all fairness; I think it is only right that one should do so. For example, the main line service between London and Liverpool has improved during the last year both in point of timekeeping and in point of rolling stock. Indeed, one might almost go as far as to say that the "Red Rose" and the "Manxman" are almost worthy of the contribution Liverpool is making to the Festival of Britain.
But once one gets away from the main line services and commences to probe the rather obscure localities in the country, one does not find quite the same improving situation. Again, I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman for this, because, obviously, we cannot expect him to understand or know about all the details of railway working. Let me give one small example, however, of the sort of thing which is happening in my own city.
There is a local train, known still as the dockers' train, and it leaves Lime Street station at ten minutes to one every day. In the old days it went to Garston docks, taking dockers from Liverpool to Garston. Today, it runs only as far as the station known as Allerton. On the few occasions on which I have travelled on it, it has consisted of five coaches, and generally it has carried about five or six passengers in all—that is, a total of five or six passengers in the five or six coaches. The reason, of course, is that the railway fare is 50 per cent. higher than the bus fare.
The fact is that the line between Allerton and Garston was ripped up years ago and the station at Garston dismantled, but for some completely inexplicable reason that train is still running and, what is more, all the suburban stations between Lime Street and Allerton—and this is perfectly true; I am sure Liverpool Members can verify it—have recently been completely renovated and overhauled. One station close to my home has had about 25 men working on it for about three months. It has been pulled down in parts, re-erected, painted all over and tarmac has been laid all along the platform.
That station is not used by more than about a dozen people a day. It would have to be open for a thousand years to recover all the money which has been spent on putting it right in recent times. I am bound to say that if that sort of thing is being reproduced throughout the country, I can well understand why the railways are making losses and I can well understand why Lord Hurcomb is complaining that he has not enough money to spend on capital account. It has been frittered away on quite unnecessary purposes.
I should like to say a word in support of the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). It is quite true that the financial policy of the Railway Executive on the passenger side is one of very dubious wisdom indeed. It is a fact that during the last two years, between 1948 and 1950, passenger takings in this country went down by 12 per cent. During that period the number of passengers travelling fell, and so, too, did the distances travelled. It has gone down in every respect—the income, the number of passengers and the mileage travelled.
I do not altogether agree with the diagnosis of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, but I agree with him in this sense: that when prices are rising generally throughout the country the first industries which will feel the draught, and will suffer because people are getting progressively more and more impecunious, are the industries which are trying to sell marginal commodities.
In the case of the vast majority of the people travelling on the railways, if railway travel is anything it is a marginal commodity. People are free to decide even not to travel at all between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, let us say. They can go by car or by bus, or they can even walk or send a letter. It is for them to decide; it rests with them, and it is because railway travel is very largely, although not wholly, a marginal commodity that passenger traffic has been declining during the last two years.

Mr. Manuel: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think he must take this argument to its logical conclusion. If he is making the case that passenger receipts have fallen by 12 per cent. over the last 12 months—I think that was the period


he said—will he give the figure by which bus receipts have increased? He must take that into account in any comparison he makes before a final decision is reached as to whether or not service has been given—because that is what we are trying to provide.

Mr. Bevins: I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my meaning and I am afraid I have not time to explain it further. I am not criticising the service at this point; all I am saying is that, as railway travel is obviously a marginal commodity from the point of view of most people who contemplate using the railways, then when prices generally are rising the railways are bound to feel the draught fairly quickly. I therefore draw the inference from that conclusion that in times like these, times of inflation, the correct policy for the railways on the passenger side is not to increase fares and so drive away more and more passengers but, in fact, to reduce fares.
I am perfectly well aware that some hon. Members opposite may say, "We could not contemplate that for one moment. After all, here we have something which is approaching a monopoly and we are entitled to increase fares if they are not high enough." I do not know whether they take that view or not. But do let us realise that the case of transport and the case of coal are in no sense parallel. Coal is a monopoly in this country. The National Coal Board can increase its prices as much as it likes and probably get away with it within certain limits. The Railway Executive cannot do that.
What I am suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman is that in times of inflation the Railway Executive would be doing the right thing if it were to adopt the bold, imaginative policy of reducing fares and filling the trains, and so improving its financial position. I am perfectly certain that the traditional reaction of the monopolist mind to every time of loss—to increase prices—is the wrong one. It leads to greater and greater damage to every industry to which it is applied.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate he will give the House his reasons—if he has any, of course—why he supports the policy of the Railway Executive in this matter.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I hope in the course of my very short speech to cover the points which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) has raised, but I should like first to refer to the case which was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), in opening the debate. I thought it was perfectly clear that he had not a very good case at all. The hon. Gentleman made some sweeping proposals for doing away with the Docks Executive, the Passenger Transport Executive, and the Hotels Executive. Everyone on this side of the House knows that the hon. Gentleman is violently opposed to the nationalisation of transport altogether, and what he would do away with is the whole of our system of nationalised transport.
I admit that the difficulties today in the transport world are extremely great. During the war the railways, vital to our system of defence, were neglected from the point of view of repairs and renewals, because of the concentration upon the war effort, and it was quite understandable to everyone that, when the war was over, the railways would have to undergo a long period of expensive work in connection with repairs and renewals and the provision of new equipment, and generally with bringing them up to date.
I think that up to now we can congratulate the Railway Executive for the manner in which it has got down to this very difficult problem. I have never disguised my view—although I have been associated with road passenger transport for many years—that our railways are essential not only to our defence, but essential to the industrial well-being of the nation. I say quite frankly, and without any apology at all, that I have always believed the policy of increased freight charges and the policy of increased fares has not been the right policy to adopt so far as the railways are concerned.
I believe, as I have said more than once, that the railways should be regarded as a semi-social service. I said it before nationalisation, so hon. Gentlemen cannot accuse me of wanting to subsidise the railways because they are now under nationalised control. I believe that, with all the competition of road transport for both goods and passengers, it will


be an impossibility for any transport executive to make the railways a paying proposition.
I think, therefore, that the Minister of Transport must look at this position first of all from the point of view of trying to get the utmost amount of efficiency on the railways, with the co-operation—and the essential co-operation—of the trades unions. Then he must decide whether the increasing charges are to be passed on to the community in the form of increased fares and freight charges, or whether he should recommend to the Government the payment of subsidies. I take the view that a subsidy, provided that it is applied with caution, is the best method of dealing with the position arising from the competition with the roads.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth is, of course, always joyful when increased fares have to be charged. He referred particularly to increased fares for road passenger transport. I want hon. Members to realise the position of the men engaged in the road passenger transport system. I spent over 30 years in that section of transport, and I contend that the men on road passenger transport have never really had a square deal so far as wages and conditions of employment are concerned.
I remember the war period when our men, working sometimes long hours, were transporting men and women to the munition factories in the mornings, taking them home, in some cases, for lunch at noon, and then taking them home in the evenings. I remember very well that, because the Government were not prepared to increase the fares of road passenger transport, our drivers, conductors and staff generally were not getting wages and salaries commensurate with those which were being earned in munition factories and in other industries.
I say to the House that, while I believe that we should keep fares down to the utmost minimum, we should not do that at the expense of refusing to the men and women engaged in the industry wages commensurate with those applying in other industries. During the war road passenger workers did a magnificent job.
I remember being with them on Merseyside during the blitz and after the

blitz, and I remember the tremendous service they rendered and the great risks they took in providing transport for the factories and the general public. I think it is wrong for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when an increase in fares is proposed to meet the reasonable demands for wage increases for the employees, to try to make political capital out of it.
In my view the work of the Transport Commission will be very difficult. They must get on with the co-ordination of our transport system. The freedom which was given by the Minister to the C licences was a profound mistake, because of its effect on the railways and the nationalised section of commercial transport; eventually the extension of the C licences will result in our national transport not having funds available to bring about the requisite measures of efficiency. I congratulate the Transport Commission upon their work up to date, and upon the Report they have presented to the House. Only by the co-ordination of our transport system, rail and road, goods and passengers, and shipping, shall we get sensible transport organisation.
I should very much like the question of transport taken completely out of the field of political controversy between the two sides of the House. It is essential to have efficiency and economy in this industry, and the welfare and happiness of our people depend upon the co-operation of every one concerned. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to refer to inefficiency here and there. For instance, the hon. Member for Toxteth referred to a local line in Liverpool in order to criticise the efficiency of the Railway Executive.
Quite frankly, I cannot understand why he should try to discredit the Railway Executive. If I have any complaint, it is that, in the main, the old gang who operated under private enterprise are still in power and directing the policy of this nationalised industry. My criticism is that, either they are inefficient and were inefficient under private enterprise, or they are not doing their job because they are not interested in the principle of nationalisation.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Three or four years ago it was argued by hon. Members


opposite that once the railways were nationalised there would be a big improvement.

Mr. Rankin: So there is.

Mr. Bevins: Now that the railways have been nationalised, the hon. Gentleman himself deplores their inefficiency. Surely he cannot now attack hon. Members on this side of the House because some of the same people are running the industry.

Mr. McLeavy: The hon. Gentleman himself paid tribute to the improved conditions on the railways during the past 12 months.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member is criticising them.

Mr. McLeavy: I am not talking about the inefficiency of the railways. I am trying to point out that the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. In the main, the same people were running the railway undertakings under private enterprise as are running them now, and if they are inefficient now my charge is that they were inefficient when they were employed by the private railway companies.

Mr. Boothby: They are far from inefficient now.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Has it not occurred to the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), that they may have been given an impossible task?

Mr. McLeavy: I doubt very much whether asking a man to perform the same administrative duty and paying him at least the same remuneration for the work would prevent him from carrying out his job. The Transport Commission have left it to the various Executives, with their expert members, to get on with the job, and if there is any inefficiency it is due, in my submission, to the fact that those who served these undertakings under private enterprise have been retained in the service of the nationalised undertaking.
There can be improvements in our nationalised transport system, and I believe that debates in the House will contribute to an improvement of the management of this industry. However, I urge hon. Members opposite not, merely

for the sake of cheap political advantage, to make silly gibes against this great national undertaking. This industry has a tremendous job to do, and when there has been an opportunity for re-organisation, provided the policy now being pursued by the Minister of Transport and the Government is continued, our nationalised transport will prove a tremendous success, and will be of great value to the well-being of the nation.

5.57 p.m.

Sir Austin Hudson: This debate has shown how difficult it is for the House to try to deal with the Annual Report of the British Transport Commission, which this year consists of 446 pages and deals with six Executives. All one can do is to speak on one subject, and I will endeavour to say something about the London Transport Executive. In doing so, I must apologise to the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), because it will be impossible for me to connect my remarks with the points he made.
I should like to preface my remarks by congratulating the Transport Commission on the form of their Report this year. It is not easy to read through and digest this large Report, but it is well written so that one can understand what the different paragraphs mean even if one does not agree with all of them. All through the Report the Commission seem to be asking us to realise what a Herculean task they have been given, with what appalling difficulties they are faced, and why some of the Executives doubt whether they can even make them pay.
While reading the Report, I could not help wondering who is better off for the nationalisation of transport. I am still in doubt after the speeches so far made in this debate. I do not think that the passengers on the railways or the nationalised Road Passenger Executive are any better off. They have to pay more for a service which is certainly not superior to what we had before the war. I do not think that trade and commerce are better off, because they again have to pay more for the carriage of their goods which, to judge from our correspondence as Members of Parliament, does not always seem to be over efficient.
Are the employees really any better off? All I can say is that we are always


being told that there are not enough employees on the railways because they are leaving the services in comparatively large numbers. Therefore, they are perhaps not better off. Certainly the ordinary taxpayer is not better off, because he fears that at any moment he may have to make up a loss of £40 million or so on nationalised transport. The only people who seem really satisfied with nationalised industry are the doctrinaire Socialists, because it has been in their programme for so long.
The London Transport Executive start off their Report by saying:
The year 1950 can in general be regarded as one of achievement under restrictions.
Last year—I have been trying to look it up, but I cannot find it—I think they started off by saying that the year 1949 was "one of steady progress." It all depends on what is meant by achievement. In London, during this year the passengers carried have declined by 95 million, 2 per cent., and passenger traffic receipts are down by £633,000, 1.1 per cent., whilst working expenses are up by £1,283,000, 2.4 per cent, and net traffic receipts are down by £1,962,000, 52.9 per cent. Those figures will be found in paragraph 498 of the Report.
I am asking the House to consider if that can really be called a year of achievement, even if it were "achievement under restrictions." Londoners will chiefly remember 1950 for the London Area Passenger Charges Scheme, and on this I link up to some extent with the hon. Member for Bradford, East. He asked us not to make a party issue of increased charges, but I would ask him to realise that when these charges schemes go before the Transport Tribunal, the people who object are not only Members on this side of the House but trades councils, the London Labour Party and a whole number of other people who belong to quite different political parties to my own.
Last year, the London Transport Executive asked for an increase in London fares of £3,692,000, and the Tribunal granted them an increase of £2,680,000 which we in London were pleased was not the full amount asked for. Although I cannot discuss it, as it is now before the Tribunal, a further increase is being demanded on top of that increase of £2,680,000. That, of course, is sub judice, and so we cannot discuss this

year's increase as well. I would, however, point out that this places a very heavy burden on the person who has to live and work in London.
In paragraph 502 of the Report, we find the statement that the charges scheme is:
In order to achieve a measure of assimilation of fares on London Transport and British Railways services in the London area, …
I do not think that is strictly accurate. The real reason is that British Transport had to try to get increased revenue, and the Londoner—and this is what we feel rather in London—has to travel probably on the London transport system from his suburb, or wherever he lives, to his place of work. London is so vast that some form of transport is absolutely necessary—as it is in other big cities—and, therefore, the Londoner cannot avoid this increase.
The Report states that travellers are not using the railway services as they should. That is put down to the wet weather in the year 1950, but I think it is financial stringency and the cost of living that has caused the number of travellers to fall off. The point that I want to emphasise is that the piling up of fares on these people who have to travel—season ticket holders and so forth—means a very serious increase in the budget of those people living in London and immediately around it.

Mr. P. Morris: Does the hon. Member really think it fair to quote all these increases in fares and charges without indicating the tremendous increased charges which London Transport and British Railways have to meet in respect of practically every commodity they use; in fact, the average increase is at least 245 per cent., and is it not fair to quote that when mentioning the increase in charges?

Sir A. Hudson: I am speaking of the difficulty that the Londoner is facing, first, by the charges scheme which we are discussing in this Report, and further by the charges scheme which is to come. The fact that these charges are felt hardly is borne out by the enormous number of objectors going to the Tribunal to protest against any further increase taking place. They do not all come from one side. They are not political objections. Everyone is realising that London is in a peculiar position because of its enormous


size and the difficulties which Londoners have to face if the fares go up too high. I do, of course, realise—and it is properly set out in the Report—why fares have to go up, and all I am asking of the House is to take note of the difficulties we are in and to hope, although we cannot discuss it now, that the further increases will not be too heavy.
I want to say a word about the new works of the London Transport Executive. Mention is made in the London plan of the proposed extension from Bakerloo to Camberwell—I mention this now because further on it would come to my own constituency—and the fact that it has had to be either cancelled or postponed. I do not want the Minister to reply to this point now, but perhaps he will let me have a reply in writing so that Londoners may know what are the engineering difficulties which have caused this extension of the Bakerloo to Camberwell tube to be, if not cancelled, at least postponed.

Mr. Barnes: They are not engineering but financial.

Sir A. Hudson: It says, engineering in the Report. I think I am right in saying that paragraph 27 states that, apart from financial difficulties, engineering difficulculties have arisen. It is a small point, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into it and give me an answer, because it is a matter about which we in the south of London are particularly anxious.
There is one small paragraph on page 3 which states that the transfer of a certain number of electrically operated lines has been made from British Railways to the London Transport Executive. We should all rejoice in that, because one of the great advantages—I would say the only advantage, but I should be accused of being partisan—of nationalisation is that the whole of the greater London transport system comes under one control.

Mr. Rankin: Some advantages.

Sir A. Hudson: As Londoners, particularly in the south of the City, we are interested in the big scheme now going on for the scrapping of the trams and the substitution of buses, which is also mentioned in the Report. Could the Minister say whether that is up to

schedule? It is due to be completed in October, 1952, and we can see with our own eyes that it is proceeding, but I should like to know if it is going according to schedule, because it will have two advantages. One is that it will relieve congestion in the south of London; and, secondly, it will help on the question of power cuts, because trams are large consumers of electricity.
That brings me to the two problems with which London Transport Executive have to deal. They are not peculiar to London, but are peculiar to any great city. The first is peak hour travelling. In my days at the Ministry of Transport and, indeed, all the time I have been in this House, I have studied this problem, and I do not think there is any solution. Londoners, like all the British, are very much creatures of habit, and while we have altered working hours to avoid the peak rush, it has never succeeded because most people like to keep to the present office hours. Many efforts have been made to alter hours of work, but they have never succeeded.
Another point which is talked about in this Report is traffic congestion. That links up with the peak hour rush, because if we could do away with some traffic congestion, we would get the traffic running more smoothly and able to take more people in a shorter time. Traffic congestion could be dealt with if the Minister would make a great effort to do so.
On page 163 there are some interesting figures about the population of London. Since 1939 it has declined—slightly in the London Transport area, but substantially in the administrative County of London. Of course, the amount of traffic on the roads has not declined, but has gone up. There is not, however, the problem of a population as great now as before the war. I do not think the population will come back to London because of the bombing of the centre of the City, and because of the housing estates which are being pushed further and further out.
The Minister had a very interesting report given to him, the report of the sub-committee of the London Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which reported in January, 1951. They made quite a lot of suggestions about traffic congestion. I feel that by a comparatively small expenditure of money quite a lot could be done.
One reason why I say that is that when the Festival of Britain South Bank Exhibition was being prepared a small number of road alterations were made around that area. Opposite County Hall is one small link road going round the Exhibition and to Waterloo Bridge. I have to use that route quite a lot, and the difference by these small alterations is simply phenomenal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at this report and see if he can follow some of its recommendations. He may find he can do so and thereby greatly relieve the traffic in London.

Mr. Rankin: And reduce fares.

Sir A. Hudson: What does the hon. Gentleman mean?

Mr. Rankin: My point is that I was wondering if the hon. Gentleman agreed with one of his hon. Friends when he suggested that, by increasing traffic, fares might be reduced. Now that he has suggested additional expense, does he still hope to reduce fares?

Sir A. Hudson: Traffic congestion is very uneconomical, and if we could get as smooth flow of traffic, particularly in the peak hours, it would make this country richer and not poorer. I do not think that this is a party matter of any kind, and that a lot more could be done without spending enormous sums of money on "The Greater London Plan" and things of that sort.
I want to give one example to the House of the sort of general economy which could be made by the British Transport Executive. A constituent of mine sent me a letter with a copy of an enormous advertisement which recently appeared in a newspaper. The advertisement referred to the fact that people could not travel on the railways because trains had to be reduced in number. This constituent priced the advertisement at £375 in one issue, which is correct, and I wrote to the Transport Executive to find out what the position was, because it occurred to me that the railways were losing enough money without taking so much space—and one knows how costly it is in the dailies—to announce further reductions in passenger services and fewer electric trains.
I was told that the space had to be booked a considerable time ahead and

that before the recent cuts were arranged at short notice the Railway Executive had planned an advertising campaign to increase traffic. Therefore, we have the position that although the Executive must have known, as we did in this House, of the difficulty of the coal situation, this extensive space was booked to advertise more trains and then it had to be used to tell people that they were not going to be able to travel as much because of reductions. That is that sort of thing that wants carefully looking into, because £375 is a considerable sum.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth is unable to be with us any longer. I understand that he got out of a sick bed to make his speech and that now he has returned to it. I am sure the whole House will regret it. I agree with my hon. Friend in saying that the whole set-up of the British Transport Commission, with its six Executives, is inclined to be unwieldy and inefficient. I cannot help thinking that this Government, and certainly any which succeed them, would be wise to try to break it down into more efficient working units and, if possible, to provide some measure of competition, which would be better for all concerned.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Collick: The House today has had the rather unusual experience of listening to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) opening rather than dosing a debate on transport. We always enjoy the vigorous and entertaining way in which the hon. Member delivers his speeches and keeps up sallies that get the House roaring with him. I am a little concerned at another unusual feature of the debate, which is that apparently no right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench is to close the debate, as none has opened it. In other words, a debate on transport is not of sufficient interest to right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Nonsense.

Mr. Boothby: Back Benchers are much better than Front Benchers.

Mr. McCorquodale: In very short debates which close at 7 p.m. it is quite usual for only one speech to be made from the Front Bench in order to give speakers on the back benches more time.

Mr. Collick: I am very glad to hear that explanation, but it is significant that so vital a subject as transport did not warrant a speech from a right hon. Gentleman opposite. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), that possibly Back Benchers on that side of the House do no less well than their Front Benchers. Whether the Front Benchers will agree with that observation I am not sure.
Whatever the hon. Member for Mon-month said in opening the debate, I am sure we are all sorry that he has had to leave the House because of being unwell. Those who listened to his speech must have been struck by how trifling the criticism was from the Opposition on this Annual Report of the British Transport Commission. I expected that we should get very much more vigorous criticism than came from the opposite side of the House.
The House might well note another interesting feature of the debate. Only a fortnight ago my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), asked the question on Business of the Leader of the House, whether we were to have a debate on transport before the House rose. The answer was "No." I confess that I was a little astonished when I discovered that a debate was to come on today. There lad been an interesting development. Some hon. Members on this side of the House had called the attention of the Government to the serious situation which, in their view, was arising, on British Railways in particular, from the shortage of skilled manpower. We were, in certain respects, highly critical of the Minister. No sooner was that done than approaches were made through the usual channels. The result is that the Opposition have given us the advantage of this debate.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Monmouth gave support to the criticism that some of us ventured to make from this side of the House 10 or 12 days ago in regard to the shortage of skilled men. I hoped that we might have had some statement from the Minister in the intervening time, but as we have not had it, perhaps it is worth stating briefly the facts of the situation.
A while ago there was concern—it is no use denying it—when the public

were informed that summer-time railway services had to be postponed for a fortnight. It occurred because of the shortage of skilled locomotive men. That was not very good. A very short time afterwards, we learned that no fewer than 254 freight trains had to be cancelled in a matter of 24 hours, again because of the shortage of locomotive train crews.
Even more serious than that is that during the last 12 months there has been a loss of no less than 1,200 enginemen and 2,984 locomotive firemen. That is serious enough. More serious still, when that was going on, was the Minister standing idly by, as he did—and as I said in the House of Commons before and now repeat—and allowing during the last year no fewer than 4,000 locomotive men to be called up into the Forces. Every one of those men would have been held to his job in the event of an emergency arising.
If the Opposition really wanted to be critical of the Government, they could make out a very strong case on the waste of public money in doing this sort of thing, calling up men to go into Army camps at the same time as the British Transport Commission were cancelling 254 freight trains in 24 hours. All the while that this was going on, the Minister did precisely nothing. That is my criticism of the Minister.
I urged last week that if there was a conception of the real urgency of this problem, and if we were to avoid a crisis in transport this winter such as we had in coal a few winters ago, it becomes important to see to it that something is done in this matter now. I am astonished that, in the light of the facts and of the representations that have been made to the Minister by the Railway Executive and by those who speak on behalf of the men and know the position, even now—unless the Minister has some announcement to make, and if he has I will gladly give way to him—apparently the Government have not made a decision on this vital matter.
I do not know how much longer the Government are going to take to make up their minds, but I share the view that unless something is done we can very easily get into an extremely difficult position in railway transport this autumn and winter. Because I know this, and because everybody in the industry who understands the situation knows it, it is pretty


painful not to have had any statement from the Minister on this matter at all.
Why is there this loss of skilled railway staff? British Railways have an amazing record of safety. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me talked about London Transport. It carries 2½ million passengers every day without a single casualty, while murder on the road by the thousands is still going on. The record of safety is because of the highly-skilled nature of the work of the railway operating staff, born of long years of training and experience. How vital it is, therefore, to see that this skilled manpower is held in the industry instead of being allowed to fritter away. Remarkably few of the men return to the railway service from the Army, because conditions of railway employment today cannot be what they ought to be by reason of the financial structure of the industry. That is the real problem.
The Railway Executive have, in many respects, no serious argument against the improved conditions which ought to be conceded to, say, the locomotive men, but in view of the financial structure of the industry they are unable to give these concessions. As a result, the men find outside more remunerative employment in which they do not have to suffer the handicap of going on duty at every hour round the clock. I say, quite frankly, to the Minister that unless he deals with the financial structure in some way as to make it possible for the Railway Executive to improve staff conditions and remuneration more sucessfully than they can now, the drift from the railways is bound to continue.
The great attraction of railway work in normal times was that a person who went on the railways knew that, by and large, he had a job for life. In conditions of full employment that has gone. It is no use now talking to a youngster about going on the railways in order to get a job for life he laughs at such a notion. We must therefore make conditions on the railways in wages and employment not merely comparable but superior to those in outside industry. In Scandinavia and other places we find that the conditions and remuneration of railway employment are slightly better than those of outside industry.
The conditions of full employment in Britain today mean that there

is no attraction in regular employment on British railways. This must be replaced by something, and I submit that this should be by improved conditions. A main line engine man with 20 to 30 years' experience of the footplate in running the crack expresses between Edinburgh and London, which are the envy of the world, finishes at 65 years of age without a penny of pension. Is not that a disgrace?

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: It always was a disgrace.

Mr. Collick: I agree, but we have a right to expect the new administration to do something about it. If we could create a superannuation scheme worthy of its name for highly skilled men like that, it would help to make employment of this kind sufficiently attractive for skilled men. I had a little to do with the removing of the ban on the consideration of superannuation schemes by state organisations. Our men on the old Great Western system also had something to do with its removal.
I hoped that the new administration would provide a superannuation scheme for the locomotive men and other railwaymen, but in dealing with superannuation and pensions for wages staff the Report says:
In the circumstances, the Commission considered that they should open discussions on the subject with the unions and at the close of the year arrangements were being made to hold a meeting for this purpose early in 1951.
I can tell the Minister and the Railway Executive that there have been enough meetings to get somewhere with this. The miners have got somewhere. It is an ironical comment that the railwaymen who were as responsible as anybody for the removal of the ban have not yet been able to get a superannuation scheme.
The difficulty is essentially a financial one. It is most notable that the hon. Member for Monmouth was keen to emphasise that, whatever was done, we should not interfere with the interest rates. I do not want personally to urge such a course, but I suggest to the Minister that if the financial structure remains as it is, there can be no real hope of getting the substantial improvements which ought to be made in the industry. The onus is on the Minister. He should bring to the House his suggestions for dealing with this.
I urged this course in the last transport debate. If I had not ceased long ago to be disappointed in such matters, I should be the most disappointed man in the House, at not hearing from the Minister some positive proposals for dealing with this. I could quote statements, irrespective of party, that in consideration of the strategic value of the railways in the defence of the country the Government ought to make a financial contribution to the industry. The figures suggested have been £10 million, £20 million and £30 million. That would be a great help, and there is very much justification for it.
When people talk about the financial structure of the industry, it ought not to be forgotten—I am afraid it is too often forgotten—that the Treasury netted £125 million from the war-time arrangement, which was earned by the sweat and the toil of the railwaymen. Why should not some of the £125 million be put back into the industry, for it was earned by the railwaymen? I and other hon. Members who know the conditions under which the railways operated during the war could make out an overwhelming case for something like that to be done. The last time I urged such propositions I was told by the Minister that the matter would have to be considered. We are always told that. One wonders what happens during that consideration.
There is another aspect of the matter. We are about to spend the colossal sum of £4,700 million upon defence. My experience in two world wars tells me that the railways are of terrific importance in such a matter. Anyone who has studied the reasons why Hitler met his demise knows that the failure of his transport system had something to do with it. I should have expected that a Minister alive to his responsibilities in such a set of circumstances would personally have been concerned to see that the skilled staff were held in their jobs, that plenty of other men equally competent were coming along and that we should look upon the matter as one of great strategic importance on the labour side as well as on the capital side of the industry.
As anybody knows who is aware of the facts, the truth is that there is a tremendous need for great capital investment in railways after all they suffered

during the war. That has been restricted. Every one knows that we ought to find some way of dealing with the problem of shortage of train crews. I do not know what suggestions will come from the Minister, but I know that all of us who are connected with the railway industry keenly await some proposals for dealing with this matter.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Monmouth. When he was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow), who asked what were the positive proposals of the party opposite on transport, I sat here with my ears pricked up awaiting the answer. The hon. Gentleman said he would deal with it in a moment, but he left it until the end of his speech.
I have always understood fairly clearly, although not authoritatively, the policy of the Opposition on road transport. The hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the debate for the Opposition might like to give us an authoritative view on this. The Road Haulage Association, who have their advocates on that side of the House, have sent out a circular to their members, one part of which says:
When a Conservative Government is returned, it will undoubtedly take powers to sell back road haulage to private enterprise.
Is that the policy of the party opposite? I will give way to any hon. Gentleman who can speak authoritatively for them. Is that the policy? Apparently they wish not to answer. I am most anxious to let our chaps on the railways know what is the policy of the Opposition. So I waited with great keenness to hear what the hon. Member for Monmouth had to say about the Conservative policy for railways.
First he made it abundantly clear that we must not interfere with interest. All right, we must not interfere with interest, but they complain when there is a smallish deficit. After all, anybody opposite who understands the facts will not argue that £12 million, having regard to the colossal turnover of the Transport Commission, is a tremendous sum in itself. No one has argued that, and I give them credit for it. But if we are not to interfere with the interest, what are we to do to put the finances of the Transport Commission in such a condition that they can meet the just claims of labour? I want a reply from the Opposition on that.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Gentleman will get it.

Mr. Collick: I am glad, because we shall certainly be interested. I suppose we were told by the hon. Member for Monmouth the policy of the Opposition. I took down these words: "Give the railways a greater degree of flexibility." Does anybody wish to insult us by calling that a policy? The Railway Executive have as much flexibility as they want. They can do what they want in their own domain, subject only to one or two overriding considerations on finance. So that is no solution.
However critical some of us may be about the shortage of skilled labour, the remedy for it and the means for preventing further deletion, not a single positive proposal has so far emanated from the Benches opposite to deal with these problems. Therefore, we on these Benches have to be both Opposition and Government; we have to govern and also to put up points of opposition. We have put those up, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what the railwaymen of this country are anxiously waiting to hear from him on points which some of us have put before the House. If the Minister is not able to be positive in what he says tonight, we shall not be disappointed; it will be something much more than that.

6.46 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I have listened with interest and care to the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick). Early in his speech the hon. Member complained that the criticisms which came from these Benches of the Commission and the nationalised transport system were trifling. I hope to be able to satisfy him on that score before I have finished. The hon. Gentleman then asked what was our policy. Perhaps he will do me the honour for a moment or two of listening while I try to reply to him.
It would be quite impossible, in a speech of the type which I can make in the time at my disposal, once again to go through the policy of the Conservative Party. However, it is all in black and white for the hon. Gentleman. He has only to read the Transport Commission debate of last year, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) outlined in considerable detail what we propose to do about road haulage.
Any unbiased hon. Member of this House would say, I think, that my hon. Friend went a long way in detailing what would be the policy of our party for all the Executives, since he dealt with one after the other. Therefore, I can only suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he will read the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the speech of my hon. Friend today, plus the OFFICIAL REPORT of a year ago, it will be abundantly clear to him what is the policy of our party.

Mr. Collick: I happened to be in the House when that speech was made, and I am familiar with it. But that is 12 months ago, and I am not sure whether there has been any adjustment meanwhile. If that is all the hon. and gallant Gentleman has to say is the policy of his party, I am familiar with it.

Colonel Hutchison: There it is. If an adjustment has been made, it has been made today; there have been no major adjustments between that debate and now, and so our policy is laid down in considerable and clear detail.
We have listened to a number of notable speeches, and perhaps the most eminent was the one of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, who has had to leave the Chamber. Yet it was an unusual circumstance to find among a number of notable speeches that perhaps the most notable was made by somebody who is not in the House of Commons. I refer to Mr. Marsden of Unilever, who was quoted verbatim by two hon. Members opposite, one in succession of the other, in identical terms. Well, he was another critic, and there has been a most extraordinary series of voices in critical harmony from both sides of the House today which the Minister must try to answer when he replies. I have seldom seen a series of speakers rise one after another to criticise a nationalised undertaking in the way that has happened today.
When we look at the voluminous and detailed and instructive report of the Commission, we are presented with an embarrassment of choice. How, in one day, in one short afternoon debate, are we to cover properly five major industries—road haulage, railways, docks, hotels and canals and inland waterway transport? It really is a colossal task, and therefore I should like to confine myself to one or two peak problems which seem


to me to stand out of this great promontory of criticism to which we might address ourselves.
One of those peaks is the debated, contentious question of a freight charges scheme. It is the product of Section 3 of the Transport Act, which provides for integration—a word which nobody seems quite accurately to be able to assess and which will, no doubt, be given a separate gloss and interpretation by each person who uses it, and which, finally, whatever comes out of the maelstrom of nationalised transport at the present time, will be claimed to be integration by the Minister at the end of the day. We have heard "Alice in Wonderland" quoted already today. I should also like to quote what Humpty Dumpty said to Alice:
When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will have to fall back on that definition of integration at the end of the day.
Originally, this freight charges scheme was to be produced in two years. Then it was delayed until early next month. Only the other day the Minister informed me, in answer to a Question I put, that he is considering whether it will be delayed still further. I hope he will take this opportunity of telling us tonight of the conclusion to which he has come.
We must always keep clearly before our eyes one of the main purposes—perhaps, the main purpose—of the whole of the Act which nationalised transport. It was to secure an efficient, adequate, and economic system of transport for the country. But we must also keep in mind what Section 3 (2) of the Act says: that there shall be to the user some "freedom of choice." In a recently issued statement of policy, the British Transport Commission say two mutually contradictory things. On page 14 they say:
The Commission … have no intention of operating integration schemes in such a way as to over-ride the duty resting upon the Commission under Section 3 (2) of the Transport Act to allow freedom of choice to any person desiring transport for his goods where regular services of different kinds are available between the same points.
That is all very well, but a moment afterwards they say this:
Rail and road services should be regarded and developed much more as complementary

to each other, and much less as rival forms of transport.
They then proceed to outline the types of goods which should be steered into each particular form of transport. The logical conclusion of that steering system, the logical conclusion of defining traffic as being suitable to railway or road, leads finally to no freedom of choice at all, and makes nonsense of the first principle which the Commission had previously enunciated.
It has been rumoured—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, I think, mentioned it—that the freight charges scheme, which is going to see the light of day sooner or later, will apply only to rail transport for distances over 40 miles and not to road transport at all. This represents an alarming change of policy and is completely out of harmony with Section 76 of the Transport Act. It is a dangerous situation which is developing, because it leads to a number of unsatisfactory positions.
Under such a system, road rates will be able to be varied by the Commission at will. Similarly rail rates, for distances over 40 miles, will be able to be varied at will. The full process of appeal to a tribunal, carefully thought out by the House during the passage of the Act in both Second Reading and Committee stages, will disappear. All the protection which a near-monopoly should grant to the user and to the public will no longer be there. Road rates could be varied so as to divert traffic to the railways, and both the rail and road systems could be used to subsidise short hauls, where alone there will be effective competition. That would make the position of the private haulier at the end of the day impossible, an ultimate result which we always predicted in the earlier stages of the Act.
The question of subsidy has already been mentioned by two hon. Members. The hon. Member for Birkenhead, I think, indicated that some form of subsidy should be given. I beg the House only to use the principle of subsidy as a very last resort. It is the refuge of the inefficient. It is a drug that needs to go on being taken in ever-increasing quantities, and I ask the Government to look at the example of the shipping industry which throughout the years, has set its face against it even in face of subsidised foreign competition.

Mr. Monslow: Does the hon. and gallant Member deny that £100 million was given in subsidies by the old orthodox parties in 1919, 1920 and 1921? Was that because of inefficiency?

Colonel Hutchison: All I would say is that subsidies are the refuge of the inefficient, and should only be used in the very last resort. It is so easy to go on asking for one subsidy after another and to go on increasing them when the spur to efficiency has been completely blunted. We are moving, and if the charges scheme takes the form which I understand it is likely to take, we will move very rapidly, toward a complete monopoly, a monopoly which the Commission, in paragraph 96 of the Report, are at pains to deny, and from which the House was at pains to preserve us at the time the Transport Act went through.

Mr. Edward Davies: The hon. and gallant Member is making an interesting submission that subsidies are really the mark of inefficiency. Surely that is a rather tall doctrine to put across from the party which believes that in agriculture, for example, in some circumstances subsidies are very necessary to provide a commodity at a reasonable price. I agree that the problem is different in the railway industry, but may it not be argued that it is better for the country to have a reasonable transport service, in terms of cost, even if it has to be underwritten by a subsidy?

Colonel Hutchison: I am firmly a believer that once we start using the subsidy system for a commercial venture we start to subsidise inefficiency—or, at any rate, we remove the spur of efficiency from that industry to put itself right. Of course, there are all kinds of special circumstances—agriculture may be one of them—in which temporarily, or perhaps even permanently some form of subsidy has to be granted. All I say is that we remove the spur to efficiency as soon as we make a subsidy available.
Meantime, the integration scheme is still in the obscurity of the future, and as the "Economist" said in an article not so long ago, it is as much a will-o'-the-wisp as ever.
I want for a moment to deal with the claim to increased efficiency which is made in paragraph 53 of the Commission's Report. When one gets involved,

particularly a non-technical man, in statistics of efficiency, one is very apt to find oneself floundering among figures. I want, therefore, to avoid that particular test of efficiency, except just to say this. I find it hard, when working expenses on the railways have risen 5 per cent., wage rates and prices have risen 10 per cent.—these figures are given in the Report—and when train miles have risen by 7 per cent., to see how the result of bringing these figures together is to show that the fall in expenses per train mile has been about 2s. per mile.
Of course, it all depends what figures one takes. It is well known that statistics can be made to prove nearly anything. A comparison of train miles performed per train engine hour with pre-war figures shows that in 1950 the figure was about 8.3, compared with 8.61 in 1937 and 9.15 in 1938. Using that set of figures, therefore, the increase in efficiency has very much turned round and gone the other way.
Of course, we could get wonderful train mile statistics if we ran so few trains compared with demand that every train was crammed with goods waiting to be transported. But surely the pat on the back which the Commission give themselves in this way is not a pat of real value. What counts is when one gets a pat on the back from a person using one's system. The real test is whether the user can get his cargo at reasonable charges carried in a reasonable period of time.
Let us see how the Commission come out of it in that respect. I will use a rough and ready method and, to the layman, a more appealing way of discovering this. It is the vexed question of C licences. In the 1950 debate, the hon. Member for Perry Bar (Mr. Poole), whom we are sorry has been prevented by illness from being in his place today, bitterly complained that the C licences were "creaming" the traffic. He complained that the number of 380,000 at the time the Transport Act was put through had risen to 670,000 odd and was rising today.
I beg hon. Members opposite to realise that people do not go in for this expenditure, trouble and anxiety if they can buy a service equally cheaply from the nationalised system or, indeed, from anyone else. The fact is that at the moment they cannot. I want to give an


example of a concern I know well. They have found in the years they have run their C licence transport fleet that, after providing for full depreciation and everything else, they have been 20 per cent. better off than they would have been if they had used the cheapest form of national transport for all their goods.
It is alleged, and I am glad that the Minister took the opportunity of denying that there is much in it, that there was a great deal of contravention of the law in the matter of carrying goods back under C licences in vehicles intended only for use in carrying one's own goods. The concern I know are punctiliously careful to carry nothing but their own goods, and they get a part or full load often, but not always. Never do they touch anything else, even workmen's tools, which is not part of their own work.
The average industrialist is not prepared, at any rate lightly, to break the law. The penalties are very severe, even if he has no principles to observe. He would lose this licence with a 20 per cent. saving in transport costs. But, if he were prepared to break the law, what tremendous disadvantages he suffers in so doing! He would have to accumulate a return load, clandestinely, unable to advertise and liable to be denounced by anyone who knows what he is doing. But, if he did this, it would be proof of how inefficient is the national transport service, because it is their job and they would be beaten by the private individual doing it clandestinely with all these penalties over his head. It is an emphatic example of how inefficient the national road haulage system is at present.
I wish to ask what is happening regarding planning for this winter. Last year, when we imported coal from the United States of America—particularly at that time—it was found that we could not handle expeditiously and well the traffic which was then being offered. I ask the Minister whether this is not the time to anticipate what the situation may be this winter. This is the time to plan for the winter. It will be too late when we have run into an intractable problem to try to solve it.
I ask the Minister to provide for the harnessing of all forms of transport, not

only A and B licences for vehicles but, as he has power under the Act, to use C licence holders when the piling up of traffic comes about. Let him examine the maximum volume of traffic which he can handle during the winter, and let the Road Haulage Association know what surplus there might be so that they can call on the Association to apply for A and B licences which may have been refused earlier in the year, and use C licence holders, to get over the peak period and the "jam" which may build up again.
I wish to refer to the question of the embargoes, because it is part of my picture of testing this claim to increased efficiency. Other hon. Members have spoken of the embargoes, but I wish to draw the attention of the House to what the Chairman of the Railway Executive said at a Press Conference on 1st June. He said:
The position is serious. It is the worst pile up that any of us have ever known. We have never had a pile up of freight in May on railways before.
That does not seem a very strong argument for increased efficiency. Here history is being made of a pile up in transport in May.
There was a slogan during the war, "Is your journey really necessary?" I would like to bring it up to date and ask whether the Commission is really necessary. Why should not such Executives as are found to be necessary perform directly under the Minister? This is only another administrative layer which slows things up and kills responsibility.
It is one of the gravest defects of nationalisation that all the officials who formerly were used for taking decisions and showing initiative are all the time look to the top for that to be done for them. If we do not practice decision taking we find it increasingly difficult to do so when we have got to do so. With the decentralisation which we propose, we ought also to see if the Commission is necessary at all.
The Commission says in its Report—and we have heard it from hon. Members today—that money is needed for modernisation. That is perfectly true. It is one of the crying needs of the nationalised transport system at present. In paragraph 54 the Commission say that proper provision for replacement of plant is not being made. That is a serious thing to


say. They have still liquid assets of £110 million, although some is pledged for replacement of the Railway Finance Corporation loan, and they have borrowing powers for £200 million.
The methods of operation in many places are quite out-of-date, as are the methods of handling and administration. Hon. Members have only to look at Euston, Birmingham or Marylebone to see in what a chaotic mess those places often are. I have a great deal of sympathy with the four points mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) of paragraph 96. I do not think the public are entitled to cry out every time an uneconomic line is closed down, but we have to be extremely careful before we depart from the system of safeguards before changes in charges schemes are made. The Report says:
They will be bound to urge the necessity for a more adequate allocation of the total amount available for national capital investment if an important part of the national transport system is not to be allowed to stagnate or even to decay.
Those are very grave words.
How are these capital allocations and priorities made? Has anything been decided yet? Is the Ministry so put off looking into the future in its planning by the capital allocation scheme that it becomes almost impossible to plan? It cannot be done at such short range.
The Ministry's claims for capital expenditure in 1952 should be being examined now. I do not think that is happening. Who is, in fact, doing it? Who is the responsible authority for this? Re-armament impinges on every aspect of our national life. It is, after foreign policy, the biggest question before the country. It affects transport, exports, the standard of living and labour. In every direction one turns one's eyes one sees it playing its part. On both sides of the House with certain minor exceptions, we are agreed that rearmament must be priority No. 1, but where does it begin and end?
It is no use our importing coal, for example, if, when it has been imported, the railway system cannot move it. Are there any plans for the importation of coal this winter? It is no use the railway companies carrying on with rolling stock or permanent way which could not face a war if war broke out.
Who fixes the priorities between, for example, transport's needs for vehicles and the Army's needs for vehicles? Who decides the priority of steel for a ship or the manufacture of a railway wagon or an agricultural tractor or a vehicle for the Air Force? Yet these decisions are vital. They should not be in the hands of a single Ministry.
There are too many Ministries involved in these great questions for that to continue. Defence, Materials, Supply. Board of Trade, Transport are all concerned. All of them are grappling with this problem, all have their problems, which need to be integrated. There needs to be, and there will have to be, set up a cold war Cabinet presided over by the Prime Minister or perhaps by the Lord Privy Seal. No less a body is able to see the whole overall and menacing picture, and no smaller body should be left with decisions fraught with such grave consequences to the country.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: The hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) has made, as he always does, an interesting speech but I could not gather from it anything of a sweeping and constructive nature relating to the question of the transport services of this country. He will not expect me to follow him in the short time at my disposal, but one point which rather intrigued me was the statement which he made, so I understood, to the effect that he was utterly opposed to all kinds of subsidies in transport services.
I understand that he does not go so far as his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who opposes all forms of subsidy—for agriculture, food and the rest. It is important that we should get this point clear. We are in the dark about the policy of the party opposite on subsidies.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I would not presume to speak in the name of the party on this side of the House, but I wish to make it clear that I said that subsidies should be used only in the last resort and that they are the refuge of the inefficient.

Mr. Robertson: That is a very interesting statement. I wonder if I could carry the hon. and gallant Gentleman a little further with me. He sits, as I do, for a


Scottish Parliamentary division. Would he agree to join me in a protest at the very large subsidy which is given, for example, to the MacBrayne shipping company for their services to the Western Isles? Does that indicate that there is a degree of inefficiency there which can be overcome by a more efficient nationalised shipping service? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that that subsidy should be withdrawn and this service to the Western Isles had better be taken over and co-ordinated into the general national transport services?

Colonel Hutchison: I have never suggested that a subsidy is not to be granted under any circumstances. The MacBrayne shipping service is clearly uneconomic. The company is asked to run to places which have a tiny population in order that those people should get a necessary service. It is in quite a different category from the large railways systems. I have always said that a subsidy should only be used in the last resort.

Mr. Robertson: It is rather interesting to find that the hon. and gallant Member appears to be willing to give subsidies in certain extreme cases. He must remember that considerable profits are still made from the running of the MacBrayne service, due very largely to the subsidies that are being paid.
I should like to turn to an aspect of the transport services of the country which affects Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who, like myself, represent a country area, an agricultural area, what may be described as in some respects a remote area of the country. One must remember that some of the counties of Scotland which are off the beaten track—off the main line—are, to some extent, remote.
I speak of the county of Berwickshire where several branch railway lines have recently been closed. I do not object to the closing of branch lines as such when the line concerned is completely uneconomic and where it has been superseded by more flexible road services. That should be done in the interests of efficiency. It is tremendously important, however, that when a branch line is to be closed the two sections responsible for the administration of the transport services, the Railway Executive and the Road

Haulage Executive or the bus services section, should have a co-ordinated plan in order that the service will not be less efficient when the branch line is closed than it was before the closing of the line.
In my constituency, particularly in the Berwickshire area, I am not sure that it can be claimed that the services. which have taken over have been adequate or sufficient to fill the need from which people have been suffering due to the closing of the branch line,. This part of Scotland, East Lothian and Berwickshire, is a particularly prosperous and developing agricultural area. It is tremendously important that the services there—road haulage, bus, and railway services—should be efficient and well run.
The other point which I desire to make is in regard to transport users' consultative committees. We have one in Scotland which meets frequently to consider the disappointment or disagreement of the users with the service concerned, but I am not satisfied that it is fully representative of the country districts. I hope that the Minister will give some special attention to this matter.
Looking at the personnel of the transport users' consultative committee in Scotland, I find that most of its members are from the urban areas and the large towns. Not nearly enough of them come from the rural areas. Yet it is the rural areas, the country districts, which have to depend so greatly on the transport services.
Finally, I wish to press the Minister for an assurance that there will be the very closest liaison and co-operation in future between the various sections of the publicly-owned transport system to see that when railway lines have to be closed adequate road services are capable of taking over and are ready to take over.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) gave what I thought were some very disturbing figures about the amount of skilled labour which was leaving the railway industry at present. I do not think that we can over-emphasise the importance and significance of that fact. His speech gives me the opportunity of making a brief reference to what I can only call the continuing and rapid demoralisation of the railway system of this country. I do not think that that is putting it too high.
I speak merely as a user of the railways. There are hon. Members opposite who have great practical experience of the trade union movement and of many other aspects of railway life. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House use the railways from a commercial business point of view. Some have been directors in the past, and they have great experience and knowledge of the practical working of the railways. I am just a traveller—a fairly extensive traveller—on British railways and I must honestly say that the deterioration since the war has been terrific.
There is no cause for complacency whatever on either side of the House with the British railway system at present—absolutely none. I should like to give one or two examples. First, there is the question of unpunctuality. Trains in this country are slow-scheduled. By comparison, they are slower scheduled than the trains of France. I have made it my business during recent weeks to study the arrival of main line trains both in Scotland and in the main London termini. The record is very bad. The record at Euston during the winter months—and I have looked at the figures—was really disgraceful.
I propose to say something which would upset my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) if he was here. The record of the L.M.S. for punctuality before the war was never good. The record of the L.N.E.R. main line trains—not the Liverpool Street line—was absolutely superb before the war. That has all gone. My last three journeys to Aberdeen have averaged over one and a half hours late, whereas before the war it was unheard of to be five minutes late. I travelled north with one of my hon. Friends last Saturday night to Aberdeen and the train was three and a quarter hours late. When we questioned the sleeping car attendant we were told the same old story.
They call it engine failure. It may be that nobody bothered to clean the engine. It may be that the fireman did not bother to turn out. They say that the coal was bad. But the fact is that engine after engine cannot pull, or will not pull, the train and the engine has to be changed. This happens again and again, sometimes three nights out of six. The

punctuality record is getting worse and worse. So much for that.
I turn for a moment to the question of dirt. I assert that the rolling stock of British railways is permanently in a filthy condition, both outside and in. That does not apply only to the rolling stock, but also to the locomotives. That is a bad thing. If one studies the locomotives at any of our great London termini, one finds that the gleaming, splendid creatures that existed before the war—symphonies in blue and green and brass of the Great Western Railway—have disappeared.
Now they are all the same, covered with soot and muck—even the great new ones of the London and North-Eastern like the one we call the "Coronation Express." One cannot see them for dirt. Nobody ever touches them. It is the same as with a motor car. I do not believe that an engineman can take a real pride in his engine or in his work if he has to drive these filthy machines along the lines and nobody can tell one from the other.
That is a condition which hon. Members will find staring them in the face if they go to any one of our London termini. They will not find that a single engine has been cleaned for weeks and weeks. They are never cleaned. What is the cause of it? I should like to know. I pass over hastily the restaurant cars, and I come to the service generally.
I want to echo what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) as an example of bad service and of what has been happening in recent weeks and months to the fish from Aberdeen. Before the war, fresh fish consigned from Fraser-burgh, Peterhead or Aberdeen itself could be put on a train at a certain time and one knew that it would be delivered at Billingsgate in time for the next market. That has not been operating for weeks and months, although we have written to everybody including the Railway Executive and Lord Hurcomb.
They write and say that it is a question of shortage of labour. Then, two or three days later, they say that it is not a shortage of labour, and that it is a shortage of wagons in which to carry the fish.

Mr. David Jones: The hon. Gentleman will find on page


120 of the Report figures to prove that the degree of punctuality was higher in 1950 than in 1949.

Mr. Boothby: I cannot conceive that I have been as unlucky as all that. If that is the case, I must be the most unlucky man in the country, and my friends must be equally unlucky. However, I will let that pass for a moment.
The hon. Gentleman certainly cannot deny what I was saying about the delivery of fish from Aberdeen to Billingsgate. I can tell him, with full authority, that if one wants to have a chance of getting fish delivered in time to Billingsgate, one has to take care to put it not on the first train out of Aberdeen but on the second train, which runs out an hour later. One can take it as certain that the second train will arrive ahead of the first. Fish put on the second train has a reasonable chance. If it is put on the first train there is not a hope. I do not call that good service.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Robertson) referred to the closing of branch lines. It is now proposed to close a branch line in my constituency from Aberdeen to Macduff. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) is also concerned about that. If they close this line altogether to passenger services, it will put paid to the development of an important part of the northeast coast of Scotland. It might not be so very bad if an alternative method of transporting goods was available, but that is not so. The line is costing £5,000 a year, I grant that.
This is an obvious case for the introduction of the auto-rail car which is in common use on the continent of Europe and also in America. It never seems to have occurred to the Railway Executive to attempt to use such a method. There they have the permanent way, a solid steel road; but it never occurs to them to run a tram service along that road at comparatively small cost in diesel fuel. Why do they not do that? I do not understand it. One has only to cross the Channel to find these things running all over the north of France and making profits. That is what these branch lines require.
This leads me, in conclusion, to the general question of what we used to call in the Army esprit de corps. I think that

this is at the root of a great deal of the trouble on the railways. I think that there is a case for increases of wages in the railway service, especially for the more highly skilled men. Whatever the cost may be, and however it may have to be met, I believe that there is a case. It was put by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, and by other hon. Members. But the fact remains that there is very little esprit de corps in our railway system at the moment, and not much discipline.
The stationmaster at one of our principal terminus stations said to me recently, "If I want to give an order nowadays, Mr. Boothby, I can take it as fairly certain that the men, whatever their grade may be, are bound to have a meeting to decide whether they should obey it or not. I am bound to say that they nearly always decide to obey it, but it is nearly always too late." That is contrary to my idea of discipline. If hon. Members take the trouble to talk to guards and senior attendants on the railways, they will find the same state of affairs.
I took a note of what a senior attendant of 24 years' service said to me the other day when I was complaining bitterly about the late arrival of a train. He said, "Nobody gives a damn any longer whether trains arrive on time or whether, for that matter, they arrive at all." That is what he said, and I do not call that taking a pride in service. Another one said, "I am thankful I am retiring next year, because the heart has gone out of this show. Nobody minds any more."
Why is it? I think it is the same story, once again, of what has happened in the other nationalised industries. It is that the human touch has been taken out of this industry. The Minister of Transport must try to bring some humanity back into it. Nobody in the industry has ever heard of the Railway Executive, ever sees it or knows of whom it consists or what they do; and nobody cares very much, either.
I remember, long before the war, that if one went to the Waverley Station in Edinburgh or to King's Cross, one would see the tall and distinguished figure of Mr. William Whitelaw, the chairman of the L.N.E.R., on the platform. Every porter on the station knew the chairman of the company, and knew that he could go up to him and talk to him, and they were all put on their mettle. We have nobody like


Willie Whitelaw in the railway industry today. He was doing a very good job, and I wish we had him back today, because there is nobody like him.
I asked a stationmaster at another rail- way terminus when he had last seen the Railway Executive, and he said, "I have not seen any of them for nine months, and I have almost forgotten who they are." That is one of the troubles, and the answer to it, of course, is not to denationalise, but to decentralise. This thing is far too big for these men to control. Even the L.M.S. was too big for a single board of directors to control, and the whole of British Railways is far too big for any one small executive to direct and control efficiently. How can they know what is really going on, and how can the people whom they are supposed to be directing know much about them?
I am inclined to agree with an hon. Gentleman opposite who said that the railway system should be regarded as a service rather than—as my hon. and gallant Friend behind me described it—as a commercial venture. I do not think it is a commercial venture. I think it is a service, and that the conditions of that service should be good. I for one, and I speak only for myself, do not rule out entirely the necessity, in the end, in the interests of standardised freight charges all over the country, and not merely for fish, of some form of subsidy for our railway system, but only in return for real efficiency—and efficiency is what we have not got today.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Proctor: We have listened to an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), and I should like to say in reply to him that I, too, have had complaints from the staff when I have been travelling on the trains.
On one occasion, I asked a member of the staff why he gave us these complaints in this manner, and he said, "It is my job to keep the passengers pleased, and many of them are against nationalisation." I believe that, if the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, would take the place of Mr. Whitelaw, to whom he referred, and went on the railways showing his pride in British Railways and encouraging the people who are working them to regard them as a great national asset, and if

he also took his proper place as a Member of Parliament and encouraged the people with whom he came in contact to regard this industry as a great national service, he would not hear so many of the tales of woe which he apparently enjoys on his way to Aberdeen.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument to be that the railways allow their engines to become dirty to please the passengers?

Mr. Proctor: We have heard a lot about the cost and the amount of money which it would cost to keep the railways efficient. Let the hon. Gentleman opposite consider the immense cost of polishing the railway engines. The hon. Gentleman has wide experience of the railways, and he ought to know better, because he knows how costly that can be. We have to consider brilliance, as against efficiency and economy.

Mr. Boothby: If the French can clean them so can we.

Mr. Proctor: Yes, and, the French have many accidents which we avoid. The hon. Member has compared our railways with those of France, I suggest that we come out of that comparison very well indeed. Let us compare the track of British Railways with the French railway tracks, and, when the hon. Gentleman speaks of speed, let him balance that against the safety of British Railways as against any other railways in the world. Let us consider, when we arrive half an hour late, that it is better to arrive safely than to have an accident.
The question was posed to us as to who is better off as the result of nationalisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody."] There were two great industries in this country in 1945 which were in danger of complete breakdown. One was the coal industry and the other was the railway system. I say quite frankly, in answer to the question as to who is better off, that the whole nation is better off as the result of the nationalisation of the railways and of the mines. If the railways had not been nationalised, miles and miles of railway which is at present serving the community would not now be in operation. We should not have the resources, or the number of trains running today unless we had had nationalisation, and we ought to consider these facts sensibly and courageously.
One of the most important statements that has been made since nationalisation took place was made by Lord Hurcomb, who, I am only quoting from memory, when talking to a body of tradesmen, said "I am entitled to ask that this problem of transport shall be considered without malice." I think that too much malice is brought into this question of our nationalised transport system. I want to warn traders, and especially the party opposite, that they ought not to make party capital out of this, but that it is their duty to make a success of the transport system. Unless we do make a success of it, all our other industries will collapse.
I should like to see this whole question lifted to a higher level than it has ever reached in the House of Commons. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) to enjoy himself in making the irresponsible statements which he makes in this House, but what we want is a carefully balanced view of our transport system. I should like to see this question lifted out of the rut of party politics altogether.
Let us consider whether we might not have a joint committee of both Houses set up, so that we could consider the nationalised industries in that committee upstairs. I should like to see the heads of the nationalised industries sitting on that committee, and Lord Hurcomb himself answering the charges made from the other side of the House. I believe that that is a sensible way of looking at this problem.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What about the speech of the Foreign Secretary at Durham?

Mr. Proctor: I am not concerned with what the Foreign Secretary said.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech, and he is referring to the nationalised industries, of which I understood coal was one.

Mr. Proctor: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in his speech at Durham, was dealing with foreign affairs, and not particularly with the coal industry.
If we consider why the railways are losing money at present, we shall see that there is a very simple answer. There was

a time when the railway system was very prosperous, and then there came along a new invention and we found road transport competing with railway transport. If we can stand back and view this problem from a distance, it is perfectly easy to see that, if we run two systems, one competing with the other, the older system will not be as prosperous as it was before.
The problem with which we are faced is that of integrating these two systems and of keeping them going, because they are both necessary for the welfare of the country. The railways were always unfairly dealt with by the House. Restrictions were placed upon them and red tape in abundance was used with regard to them before they were nationalised.

Mr. Boothby: And since.

Mr. Proctor: They were called upon to make returns, and many restrictions and controls were placed upon them, some of them quite unfairly.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Whoever suggested that a man should walk in front of a railway train carrying a red flag, as was done in the case of road transport for the benefit of rail transport?

Mr. Pannell: Is it not a fact that the party opposite were very interested in prosecuting the case for the railways in this House when they were defending the interests of railway shareholders, and that in the 'thirties they were against road transport?

Mr. Procter: That, of course, is so. One of the mistakes we have made is that for the party opposite we have taken all the financial interest out of the railway system. If the return of £30 million a year depended upon the prosperity of the railways, the party opposite would be considering the efficiency of the railway system very much more carefully than they are doing at present. Today, they do not care a rap. Their only interest is in road transport, whereas in the old days they had a brilliant set of men who were interested in rail transport and who looked after the system pretty efficiently in this House. But the interest of the party opposite has gone, although there are one or two hon. Members opposite who will have some real concern for the railway interests in a sentimental, if not in a financial, sense.

Mr. Boothby: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if what he says is true it is by far the most powerful argument which has so far been advanced in the House against nationalisation?

Mr. Proctor: It is always easy to be wise after the event, but I think we should have had much more co-operation in this matter from the party opposite than we are getting at the present time had we linked the payment to the results.
A most interesting suggestion was put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison). He suggested that we should abolish the Commission and place the administration in the hands of the Minister of Transport. That would be to bring in the Post Office system to run the railways. It does not alter the principle of nationalisation, but merely substitutes direct administration by this House. There may be a lot to be said for it.
Our railway system is something which this country cannot possibly do without, and we have to make that our basic consideration. The heavy industries of coal and steel could not possibly be run without it. Much is said about large C licence transport, but that form of transport is inefficient inasmuch that a lot of the vehicles run empty one way. I believe that we should be thinking out a method by means of which we could use all our national and capital assets to their full capacity. We have to remember that the basic need is to keep an efficient railway system going in this country as well as an efficient road system. At present we are preoccupied with re-armament, and I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to look upon the railway system as one of our defence assets.
The Labour Government of 1929 did an immense job for the railways. To relieve unemployment, they spent millions of pounds in making the railways efficient. The great stations of Cardiff, Bristol, Swansea and Newport were rebuilt and many of the lines were doubled, trebled or quadrupled at that time.

Mr. McAdden: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Labour Government of 1929 did this? Do I understand that they were not only in office, but had power as well?

Mr. Proctor: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. All I know is that they spent millions of pounds in bringing the railway system up to a state of efficiency and that the late J. H. Thomas was largely responsible for it.
Years afterwards, in 1939, the railway system had suddenly thrown upon it the burden of carrying millions of tons of traffic necessary for the safety of the nation. Had that money not been spent in 1929 and had the railways not been brought up to a state of efficiency with the help of the nation—not by private enterprise—we might very well have lost the war.
Supposing we were suddenly to find ourselves without oil, we should be compelled to utilise the resources of the railways in quite a different manner from what we are thinking of at the present time. I hope the Minister will give great thought to the suggestion that engine power, coaches and capital equipment of every kind should not be used to the full in times of peace and when difficulties are not upon us. We should have a cushion of reserve so that in case of need there would be something to fall back upon.
I ask my right hon. Friend to see if something cannot be done under the defence programme to assist the railways in this important direction so that we may have a reserve of transport in case of need. The great improvement in services, the catching up on repairs and the keeping of the system in being is something of which the Transport Commission can be justly proud.
I wish now to turn to the question of staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) dealt very fully with this matter, but I would suggest that we as a nation must consider a wages policy. We cannot have an attractive wages system for the luxury industries and leave the heavy industries under worse conditions. It is the responsibility of this House and of the nation to find the financial solution to that.
My hon. Friend referred to the question of pensions. This is a long overdue reform. The fact that at the present time there are no pension provisions in the transport industry represents an immense problem, because in normal circumstances pensions should be build up over a long


period of years. If one has to give a man a pension who does not contribute to it and one has not saved up money for the pension over a period of 20 or 25 years, then it is a matter of immense cost to provide it. That is the problem that confronts the nation and the transport system at this time, and it must be faced.
Just a word to the trade union movement to which I belong. I feel myself that it has a great responsibility at present in these matters. I want to say to every railwayman and other transport worker throughout the length and breadth of the land that it is his duty to help make nationalisation a success, and to work for the nation at the present time. Whatever grievances we have should be put forward and we should do our best to remedy them. The staff should come into closer co-operation with the nation, and be given greater responsibility. For 30 years we have asked for nationalisation, and it is the responsibility of the trade unionists working in the transport industry to make a success of it.
One word on the question of military service. I do not suggest that the Minister of Transport has done nothing in this matter. I believe that he has given most careful consideration to it, as the Transport Commission has. I think that the Cabinet and the Government as a whole should really give this matter most careful consideration, because this is the position as I see it: we may call a man up at the present time and train him for an emergency, and we may train him in any arm of any of the Services, but if we meet with a real emergency the greatest value he will be to the nation will be as a transport worker.
I am quite sure that we are wasting our resources in training railwaymen for any other job when, in an emergency, we should instantly want them for the railway system. That has been true in the last two wars, and it would be more true if there were another emergency in future. Therefore, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to convey to the whole Government the opinion that has been expressed in the House today, that something should be done in this matter so that the manpower on the railways, particularly in those grades where we particularly want it, should be left to con-

tinue their work, in which, I believe, they are being of the greatest service to the nation.
In conclusion I would say that I believe that if the whole of the community assists the Transport Commission and really does put its heart into this business we can have the finest transport system in the world. We must not sabotage it. I would ask my hon. Friends to read the resolution that the Tory Party passed at one of their recent conferences, in which they threatened those who offered their services to the nation in nationalised industry. I ask the House to pause to consider the needs of the nation, and I suggest that our duty now is to make this great transport service a real success.

7.53 p.m.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) is, I think all hon. Members will agree, a very broad minded man. He approaches all these problems without that party bias which is so prevalent amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, I should like to point this out to him, that the nationalisation of transport was one of the main planks of the Socialist Party programme in 1945. Then, they had no inhibitions about it. They were quite sure it was in the country's interest. They were quite sure they could make a success of it. We have, unfortunately, had a spate of nationalisation Acts covering a whole range of industries, and every one has been a complete and abject failure.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Shurmer: Rubbish.

Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) tried—

Mr. Pannell: "Tried" is a good word.

Squadron Leader Cooper: —to tell us today that, because the nationalisation of transport was a failure that did not necessarily mean that nationalisation as a policy in itself was bad; that because there were some bad practising Christians it did not necessarily follow that Christianity as a whole was bad. I entirely agree, but there is a very great difference, which is this, that whereas


there may be some bad Christians, there is a very considerable number of good Christians; but so far as nationalisation is concerned, the whole thing is wholly bad.

Mr. Shurmer: That is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's opinion.

Mr. Edward Davies: Assuming that the Tory Party were returned to power at some remote time, would it be their intention to de-nationalise the coal mines, for example?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Oh, goodness me.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I think that if I attempted to pursue that point Mr. Deputy-Speaker would rule me out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should not rule the hon. and gallant Gentleman out of order.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I think that the policy of the Conservative Party so far as the mines are concerned has been very clearly stated. There was a debate on this subject in this House not very long ago, when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster), put forward very positive proposals in a manner which earned, I think, at least the grudging admiration of hon. Members opposite, who are as equally affected by the malaise which affects the coal industry as they are by the subject we are discussing today.

Mr. Edward Davies: The answer is "No."

Squadron Leader Cooper: I want to touch on a subject that has not been dealt with today.

Mr. Pannell: Something the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows something about.

Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Gentleman says it is something I know something about. How right he is. If hon. Members on the other side would address themselves on occasions to subjects of which they knew something the debates in this House would reach a higher standard than they do.

Mr. Pannell: We are still waiting.

Squadron Leader Cooper: Right. I want to deal with the standards of the hotels, the refreshment rooms and dining cars, and such other personal services as the toilet accommodation on railway stations and in railway trains.

Mr. Shurmer: What were they like before the war?

Squadron Leader Cooper: I think it is true to say that these can only be described as thoroughly disgraceful. In the Report we are discussing tonight, the Transport Commission states that a number of hotels have been repaired, renovated, and brought up to some degree of modernity, but the fact remains that some of the principal hotels of this country which are owned by the Transport Commission are in poor shape. I quote, for example, the Queen's Hotel in Birmingham, where the standard is lamentably low. For example, even today, if the right hon. Gentleman will go to look at this, he will see that outside, for example, one has the greatest difficulty in discovering what is the name of the place.

Mr. Shurmer: Ridiculous.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I was there not so long ago.

Mr. Shurmer: I live in Birmingham.

Squadron Leader Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman does not notice these things it is not of much credit to him. It is in an area where there was a considerable amount of war damage. I was resident in that area not so many weeks ago. The front of the hotel is without paint, and there is no glass on the entrance—on the canopy in the front—and there is very little indication that it has got any name at all. I am suggesting that it is high time, six years after the war, that some of these big hotels in the leading cities of our country should be brought to some degree of presentability in which we can have some pride.

Mr. Shurmer: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that we use materials for that instead of for building houses?

Squadron Leader Cooper: In the same hotel—which I believe is typical of many, from my own experience—the general


standard in the dining-rooms, the quality of the linen on the tables, and the service which is given, is of the very poorest.

Mr. Shurmer: Rubbish.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I say that it is high time we got above these mediocre standards. It seems to me that since we have had nationalised transport, or since the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends have been in power, they have sought only to give a service of about N.A.A.F.I. standards, and have not sought to rise any higher.
In the dining-cars on our railways the service is bad generally and the food is appalling. I was very interested to listen to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, who at one stage said that the cow and the codling went hand in hand. Maybe that is one of the reasons why we get such odd meals on our railways; maybe they get confused when once they get into this process. I was also interested to hear him say that he regarded food as one of the real necessities of life. We rather had that idea ourselves, and I am hoping that he will let that information, that "gen," percolate through to the Minister of Food who seems to have a quite contrary view.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Perhaps I might intervene, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to me and misrepresented what I said. I said that I regarded fish and agricultural produce as essential commodities; that there should be special freight rates for them, and that in that respect the cow and the codling walked hand in hand.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman confirms everything I have said.
On the question of the dining-cars, here is something to which I want the right hon. Gentleman to address himself very seriously. On many trains leaving our big cities, particularly Manchester and Liverpool, in the evening many of the seats in the dining-cars are reserved. Passengers take those seats, with the result that only half the dining-car is available for the service of meals to passengers who have seats in other parts of the train. The result is that, generally speaking, a smaller number of meals are served because in one half of the dining-car the people who

have reserved seats from the commencement of the journey occupy those seats for the whole journey, and it is only in the second half of the dining-car that the seats—

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: That is not true.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member says that it is not true. I can assure him that it is perfectly true. If he will inquire in Manchester and Liverpool he will find that what I am saying goes on day in and day out on such trains as "The Comet."

Dr. Morgan: I frequently travel through Manchester to get to my constituency, and I have never observed that.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: Squadron Leader Kinghorn rose —

Squadron Leader Cooper: I must get on.

Mr. Pannell: He dare not give way.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I hope that this practice will be looked into, so that the dining cars are reserved for their prime object, which is the service of meals to people who travel on the trains. If it is said that there is not sufficient accommodation in the rest of the train to provide seats for these extra passengers, surely the obvious answer must be to provide further coaches.
I believe that on one of our trains in the south of England there is an observation car, but in the general make-up of our trains, in the placing of the carriages and so on, we are many years behind every other country in which I have travelled, even on the Continent, which has already been quoted. The general service, for refreshments, and so on, in the dining-cars in continental countries is far ahead of anything available to people in this country.

Mr. Collick: On the Continent the railways were nationalised long ago.

Squadron Leader Cooper: This is not a reform which will cost very much money. It is a reform which simply needs the application of a little common sense in the making up of our trains.
I now come to what is probably the worst defect of our rail transport, and that is the toilet arrangements in trains and stations. In the trains, whether it be in


first-class or third-class carriages, the toilet arrangements are deplorable. So far as I am aware—and I travel about Europe a great deal—this is the only country in which no towels are provided, whether in first- or third-class carriages.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: That is not true.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I wish the hon. and gallant Member would not keep saying "That is not true." The facts I am now giving to the House are easily capable of proof by any hon. Member opposite who cares to find out the facts for himself.
The question of there being no towels in our trains has been raised in this House on more than one occasion. I will give the right hon. Gentleman one example of a recent case. On the 6.55 a.m. from Paddington to Parr, on 7th July there was no water either in the toilet or the wash-basins in the third-class carriages. Is that not something of which we ought to feel somewhat ashamed, that a holiday train can travel all these miles with no elementary facilities for the people travelling in it? There was no water in either the lavatories or the wash-basins. It does not cost very much money to provide that. That is merely ordinary management.

Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I now come to the question of lavatory accommodation on stations. If the writ of public health authorities were to run through the British Transport Commission many of the lavatories on public platforms would be closed down. I will give only two examples, although I could give hundreds.

Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman not give way?

Squadron Leader Cooper: I will give just two examples.

Mr. Manuel: This is quite untrue.

Squadron Leader Cooper: If the right hon. Gentleman will cause investigation to be made into the facilities on stations such as Stafford or Wellingborough he will find that they are a disgrace to this country of ours. All I am suggesting, whether it be under nationalisation or private enterprise, is something which should be

the everyday concern of the people running the undertaking.
The fact that these things do happen, and still continue to happen, in our country today shows that there is not proper supervision being exercised over these details. What is wanted is sound administration and a rigid application of soap and water. If that can be done, many of these evils can be removed. The general public themselves to a very large extent, are to blame for the continuance of this state of affairs. If those travelling on our trains or using our platforms, and so on, were to complain and refuse to put up with these second-rate mediocre facilities, we should very soon get back to a service such as we used to enjoy.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: A number of matters have been mentioned today to which I should like to refer, but I will start by replying to the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper). While I think everybody will agree that the facilities provided on the railways leave much to be desired, particularly in the lavatories, I ask the hon. Gentleman: Whenever were they any good? Whenever were they in a decent condition?
In the station at Liverpool through which I travel every week, and which I have been using for the last 50 years, the conditions have remained the same during all that period, although recently some improvement has been made. From my recollection of travelling before the war, when private enterprise was unfettered—although subsidised from time to time—the facilities provided then do not compare with most of the facilities provided today. I do not remember the trains being any cleaner.
It is true that at that period one could depend upon the times of the trains. They ran more strictly to schedule than they do today. We have to remember, however, that since the war the railways have had to be overhauled, and this process is by no means complete. I think that it is true to say that on some of the main lines it is not desirable—I will not say impossible—to allow the trains to go full out in order to get back to pre-war running times.
I can go a long way with the last speaker in his criticism of the occupation


of dining cars. I think that it is a scandalous state of affairs that often half of the dining accommodation on the railways is taken up by people standing. Often one can only get a seat in a diner today by tipping, and that is deplorable.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) is no longer present because he enjoyed himself today, as he usually does on transport debates. He said all the irresponsible things which are characteristic of him when dealing with transport. He attacked the Docks Executive, and the hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) followed it up. I think that it is unfair to condemn the Docks Executive, who are not only responsible for London and Liverpool, but for all the ports formerly run by the railway companies including Southampton.
They have under control about 15 or 16 ports of some consequence, including Hull and Southampton, and I do not think that there has been any serious labour trouble in any of those ports since they took them over. I hope that when any arrangements are being made with regard to dock labour that the Docks Executive of the railways will have an opportunity to put their case, because they represent about 30 per cent. of the dock labourers in the ports of the country and handle about 40 per cent, of the traffic of those ports. I think that it is unfair to attack them, as has been done today, without specifying what they have done.
I want to refer to the failure of the railways to integrate their services. I have never been very happy about the way we nationalised transport. I think that the Government, at the time when the Transport Bill was going through, were far too generous and listened too readily to the Opposition in an attempt to pacify them. The biggest blunder made, in my judgment, as I have often said before both in the House and outside it, was to allow C licences to be extended in the way we did.
Hon. Members opposite talk about the failure of road haulage. What has happened? We may as well face up to the facts of the situation. What has happened is that immediately nationalisation took place private enterprise firms, which formerly handled the traffic, were given C licences. Can anyone explain how

otherwise the number of C licences has practically doubled? [Interruption.] I am not saying whether or not the service is satisfactory or otherwise, I am pointing out what has happened. We have to remember the determination of the Opposition to smash transport or any other nationalised industry, and in so far as we have allowed it to be done in this connection, I think that the Government are to blame.

Mr. Reader Harris: Has the hon. Gentleman any plans?

Mr. Keenan: I do not know whether the hon. Member has any plans or not. All I am concerned about is that as soon as road haulage commenced to acquire the private firms with A and B licences, which did traffic over 25 miles, the increase in C licences has been got by the firms who run their own vehicles, whether it pays them or not. I know that it has not been possible to find out whether they are carrying traffic other than their own. Many of them, I think, have done a bit of that, but it is a question of catching them doing it. The fact remains that I think we should blame the Government for allowing the number of C licences to be extended.
An hon. Member said the way to ease the burden on the railways was not to pay interest on the railway stocks. I have always been of the opinion that too much was paid for railways stock. We were too generous in that matter. The fact is that we have provided for those who formerly owned the railways an assured dividend which they did not have before. I think it was the hon. Member for Toxteth who said that the railways before nationalisation paid a good dividend. I can remember some years when the railway shareholders got nothing.

Mr. G. Wilson: It is not true. Can the hon. Gentleman give any year when the old Great Western Railway did not pay a dividend?

Mr. Keenan: I am aware that the Great Western paid a dividend particularly on their deferred stocks and preference shares. They were much better than the railways in the north. The L.M.S. did not pay any for many years. The subsidies that they got at different periods over the 30 years before the last


war, and that covers the Great War periods as well, helped them to pay their dividends.
In this matter we have got to be realists. No less than £49 million is being paid today by the transport industry as interest on Transport Stock. I have not time to go into all that question now, because at the commencement of the debate I did not intend to participate at all; it was what the hon. Member for Toxteth said which forced me on to my feet.
The £49 million which we pay in interest leads me to put this question to the Minister: Did the railway companies in the previous 20 years pay an average of £49 million to their shareholders? If they did not, then they have got in on a jolly good thing, and they have done well through the transfer of interest from private to public transport.
We have got to recognise that the railway services and road haulage should be associated together for the purpose of getting that efficient service in transport which we want. It is tragic that as a nation we should be stupid enough to allow some of the traffic to be on the roads when it should be carried by our railway system. There are far too many heavy vehicles and far too great heavy loads on the roads of this country when we remember the great railway system we have. From the national point of view, reliance on the railways is something which we ought to have developed and encouraged a long time ago.
I had hoped that the transport services, when nationalised, would have controlled the road haulage services and not allowed them to do what they have done with the C licences. We may have got possession of the railways, but we are allowing traffic on the roads which should be carried by the railways. The restrictions on the railways should be abolished and there should be a subsidy paid to them. One Government or another, particularly in war-time, have paid subsidies to the railways, and the time has arrived when, in the interests of this great service which is not able to increase its prices to meet increasing charges except through cumbersome machinery, there should be assistance from the State.
We should remember, too, that the railwaymen, despite the recent increase in

pay, are still badly paid. They are not getting enough. What we as a nation have got to recognise is that this great service is entitled to be subsidised. We should subsidise it to get from it the efficiency which we know we could get. I also suggest to the Minister that the time has come when we should reconsider the question of the C licence holders, so that we can have that integration of road and rail which was intended when the Transport Act passed through this House.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: I would like to follow the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) in one or two points which he made. This debate does not seem at all like old times, because we have not heard the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole). I hope that his health is improving, and he will be pleased to know that, if he has not been present, we have had his shadow roaming about this Chamber through the many references which have been made from the other side about nationalising the C licence holders.
I hope hon. Members will not think that I am unduly rude—I do not intend to be rude, but I must speak my mind on this—when I say that any hon. Member who suggests that the C licence holders ought to be nationalised is ripe for certification under the Lunacy Acts.

Mr. Keenan: I do not think that I said they should be nationalised. I said that the service should not have allowed the C licence holders to extend the way they have, and so undermine the nationalised service.

Mr. Harris: That comes to the same thing. One or two hon. Members opposite suggested that the C licence holders should be nationalised, and I say that if that should come to pass it would bring the industry to a full stop over night.

Mr. Collick: The hon. Member ought to be a little reliable in his statements. No one from this side of the House has once suggested nationalising the C licence holders.

Mr. Harris: I have listened to every speech made in this debate from 3.30, and I have taken a most careful note of the words that were spoken. The


plain inference to be taken from many speakers was that the C licence holders ought to be nationalised.

Mr. Keenan: The hon. Member said that we said it.

Mr. Harris: To put it another way, it was suggested that the C licence holders ought not to be allowed to exist.

Mr. D. Jones: No.

Mr. Harris: Hon. Members on the other side of the House think that the Road Haulage Executive ought to carry all the goods on the roads of this country.

Mr. Jones: Rubbish.

Mr. Harris: That is what the Socialist Party wants.

Mr. Pannell: Mr. Pannell rose—

Mr. Harris: No, I am not going to give way on this particular point.

Mr. Pannell: I have given way on occasions to the hon. Member.

Mr. Harris: I have got one or two other problems which I wish to put. I want to take up something which was said by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick). I fully agree with what he said about pension schemes for the lower paid workers on the railways. This is something on which I feel very strongly, and in putting forward my views I do not intend to enter on any partisan point.
I was interested in an article which appeared in the "New Statesman and Nation" a short time ago by Helen Gosse. She wrote an excellent article on the mining industry and pointed out that a lot of the dissatisfaction of the coal miners was due to the fact that the white collared workers in the industry had sick pay schemes, retirement pensions, and so on, while the lower paid workers had not. I read that article with great interest. I myself was the secretary of a trade union, the Fire Brigade Officers' Union. In the fire brigades we have a pension scheme, which gives every man in the fire service a pension equal to two-thirds of his pay when he retires.

Mr. Pannell: What year?

Mr. Harris: In the fire service there are special circumstances, but after 30

years the fireman gets his pension. The cost is borne to the extent of 20 per cent. by the employing local authority and 5 per cent. is contributed by the fireman. If firemen can have that sort of thing, if civil servants can have it, if employees of banks and insurance companies can have it, and if local government servants can have it, why should engine drivers, other railway workers and miners not have it, too?

Mr. Pannell: And why should M.P.s not have it?

Mr. Harris: As to Members of Parliament, when I got my chit today I saw that £1 had been deducted for a pension scheme.
Sometimes when I drive back from the House to home in the evening I give a lift to bus drivers, bus conductors and trolley bus drivers from Hounslow who want to move up towards Chiswick and Hammersmith. I have a large number of London Transport garages in my constituency. I have been appalled when I have picked up men aged 65 who have told me that they cannot retire because they have not a pension on which they can live. They sometimes sit next to me with their noses streaming and I say, "You ought to be in bed with a cold like that." "Oh, you can't go sick on our job," they say, "because you don't get any pay." Their trade union contributes a very small sum in such cases. I understand. That is not good enough. What is good enough for the white-collar workers is surely good enough for the manual workers.
I hope that the Railway Executive will pursue this question of pension schemes for their workers. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birkenhead read only a couple of lines from what was said in the Commission's Report on this subject. The Railway Executive have been trying to work out pension schemes, but they are pursuing a line which I am sure will never secure agreement from the trade unions. They are trying to arrange that the Railway Executive and the employee both pay the same amount of contribution. I do not think we can ever get a satisfactory pension scheme on those lines. The Railway Executive will have to realise that they have to pay more than the employee, because 5 per cent. is quite as much as an employee can pay out of his wages.


If the Railway Executive will pay 10 per cent. it will be worth while, because they will get better service and better health from their employees.
I hoped if I had time to read a few words from the article by Mr. A. G. Marsden, transport adviser to Lever Bros. Parts of it were read by an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and were referred to by several hon. Members, but they have picked out the words which were favourable to their case. I wish they had read out the passage in which it is stated that railway charges are now 99 per cent. up on 1939, road transport costs up about 90 per cent. and coastwise rates are up between 112 per cent. and 125 per cent. Let me quote from this article, so as to give a fair picture of what Mr. Marsden did say. He said:
It is perhaps pertinent to inquire whether, in paying an inflated price for transport, industry and commerce are getting the service they had in 1939, or, indeed, the service they ought to have today. We have now experienced three years of a nationalised transport system administered by the British Transport Commission, and are entitled to ask whether the service so far offered to the user is good and reflects active economy. There can, unfortunately, be only one answer—neither of these standards has yet been achieved.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), said that the reason why the railways were not as efficient today as before was that they were hopelessly overburdened. The hon. Member trotted out the old argument that because we have full employment there was no hope of the railways working efficiently or being able to carry all the passengers. Just before I came into this debate I went to the House of Commons Library and obtained Statistical Memorandum No. 21 "The Railways of Great Britain: Pre-war, During the War and Now." I see that in 1920, the number of passenger journeys was 2,185 million. In 1935, the number was 1,231 million. In 1939 it was 1,225 million and in 1950, it is only 981 million. That shows that passenger journeys have gone down very considerably, namely, by 25 per cent. What has full employment got to do with it?
The figures for goods traffic show that in 1920 we carried 332 million tons; in 1936, 300 million tons; in 1939, 288 million tons and in 1950, only 281 million tons. Apparently, the goods traffic carried is going down in weight. I cannot under-

stand the argument which is continually brought out in debates upon nationalised industries, that it is because we have full employment that these services are overloaded. In this case it certainly is not so.
I support in some measure what was said by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), who suggested there ought to be a Committee of this House which could look impartially into the working of the Transport Commission. He said that we should send the matter to a committee where the heads of the nationalised industries could meet us and sort things out. I support the idea of somebody looking into the running of the Transport Commission, but I cannot support the idea of a Committee of the House doing so because I believe that, even with the best will in the world, partisan feelings would creep in.
I should like to see a completely independent body like a Royal Commission carefully examining the whole working of the Transport Commission and the Railway and the Road Haulage Executives. There are things which need looking into, and only an independent body which is completely free from bias could give a report which would be listened to by this House and the British Transport Commission.
The question of staff needs to be examined. There are some hon. Members on the other side of the House who would agree with me that there are probably about 50,000 too many people employed by the railways at the present moment. I know that there is a shortage in some grades, but that is only because there needs to be an examination of all the grades on the railways. It is all very well to say that there is a shortage in one grade when a man in another grade stands on one side of the platform saying, "That is not my job. I cannot do it." That is wasteful. It requires not a politician but an industrial or business expert to make an examination and put forward recommendations.
Another matter which should be examined by a Royal Commission is the accountability of the Transport Commission to Parliament. One hon. Member has quoted that only 77 Questions were answered on this subject last year. The Report states that 1,800 letters were written by Members of Parliament to the Commission, and we may


assume that many of those concerned matters suitable for Questions. The whole set up of the railways and of the Commission ought to be examined.
The Coal Nationalisation Act, the first of the nationalisation Measures, set up a system generally known as a functional organisation. Later nationalisation Acts have gradually moved away from that. The gas and electricity boards have some measure of independence. In the case of the Iron and Steel Act the corporation set up was little more than a holding company. Is that the direction in which the Government are going? If it is the right direction, cannot we send the Transport Commission in that direction?
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), said that he did not believe in de-nationalisation but did believe in de-centralisation. I believe it is only a matter of time before the Conservative Party comes round to the view that we ought to de-nationalise the railways. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but the Socialist bible, "Let us Face the Future" says:
Each industry must have applied to it the test of national service. If it serves the nation, well and good; if it is inefficient and falls down on its job, the nation must see that things are put right.
It is a moot point how we can put the railways right, but it may come to the point of de-nationalisation. I am not saying that is our policy now, but it could come to it. The Socialist bible says:
Co-ordination of transport services by rail, road, air and canal cannot be achieved without unification. And unification without public ownership means a steady struggle with sectional interests or the enthronement of a private monopoly …
We now have a public monopoly in control. The Socialist bible adds that a private monopoly
… would be a menace to the rest of industry.
We cannot afford to have anything in the nature of a menace to industry. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) made a good point when he said that there is a grave danger this winter of a complete collapse in the carrying of freight on the railways. We cannot afford that. We cannot put up with that sort of thing for years and

years and, if necessary, we may have to de-nationalise the industry.
The whole question of the future of the railways and the set-up of the transport of this country should be the first thing to be looked into by a Royal Commission. Have we reached a time when the railways must begin gradually to contract so that we expand the more modern forms of transport? We shall always need the railways to carry freight and pig iron and coal, but we must not get to a position where our newer forms of industry have to be held back in order to feather bed or bolster up the railways, because we cannot afford it.
One thing that frightens me about the Road Passenger Executive is that one day they will get their claws on the country's coach services. When that happens presumably coach fares will be brought up to the level of the railways, and in that case millions of people will not be able to go on a holiday. One can travel to the coast now at about half the price of the railway fare. The Act says that people shall have freedom of choice, but they will not have it if we bring all costs up to those of the railways. We may have to think, therefore, exactly what the future of the railways will be.
Finally, I hope that a Royal Commission will look into the question of closer harmony between the Executive and the unions and between one union and another. I make this suggestion in the hope that one day somebody will take it up, and that we shall get a Royal Commission to make independent and unbiased proposals which will be for the benefit of the industry.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: I want to deal with one or two points in the brief time that is left to me. A great deal has been said about C licences, but nothing has been said about the nationalisation of C licence holders. No one wants to nationalise greengrocers' vans and the multifarious services which are run properly as a special business. However, due to the general conditions prevailing in the country, we are still in a seller's market where people think they can get any price for their goods and are not too careful about transport costs.
I should like to see the Inland Revenue and the Income Tax Commissioners looking at the costs of some C licence operators. If it is proved that they are operating much more expensively than British Road Services, they should not be allowed to calculate their expenses as the costs of that business. This would probably bring them to earth quicker than any talk about reducing the services.
I am not satisfied that C licence holders necessarily operate more cheaply than British Road Services. It is almost inevitable that they will have more empty running time than British Road Services, unless they happen to be a multiple concern. Therefore, British Road Services ought to be able to run more cheaply. Within those limits there are specialised hauls which C licence operators can operate more economically than the general road haulage service. However, it is wrong to assume that C licences should necessarily be curtailed severely, although they should operate efficiently. The test ought to be the cost at which they are operating, and I suggest that the authorities should pay much closer attention to the C licence vehicle operators and their cost of operation so that these are not charged up unduly against their total production.
It has been suggested that the rail system is better for many types of haulage but, of course, while it may operate reasonably efficiently, it is much slower. If the railways are to get back the traffic they have lost to the roads, they must have a more efficient system of handling the traffic so that there is easier and more direct delivery in much shorter time. Road haulage can be delivered from door to door in far less time than the railways can do it. The person who wants his goods carried wants it done in the shortest time, not in the longest. If the railways pay attention to that point it will be found that there is quite a lot of traffic now going by road which could easily go by rail.
It was interesting to listen to the advocates of pension schemes. I would have been much more impressed if those on the other side who now strongly advocate pension schemes had been prepared to advocate them when the industry was privately owned. It is amazing how many converts we have to pension schemes when the cost has to be borne, not by

private enterprise, but by public enterprise.
Incidentally, I assure hon. Members opposite that there are very large sectors of private enterprise which are long overdue for pension schemes, and they might well turn their attention to, say, the cotton industry, the woollen industry, or others of the great industries, in which pension schemes ought to be operating for the benefit of the workers. Let us get away, therefore, from the idea that all this must be pinned down upon the nationalised industry, and let us be a little more generous in our outlook towards pensions for industries.
On the question of London Transport, there is a feeling amongst the people of London that they are liable to be mulcted out of proportion to the amount that they ought to pay in order to meet the overall losses of the Commission. It would be entirely wrong if that sort of impression were allowed to continue.
It must be borne in mind that the workers in London have been encouraged to go out into the suburbs and the countryside to live, and that one of the reasons for their doing so has been the provision of a cheap and efficient transport service. There is no question but that it still remains a cheap and efficient transport system, but the answer is that Londoners are now bound willy nilly to travel. Any increase in cost to the Londoner should be kept to the barest possible minimum that is required by the London system alone, and Londoners should not be burdened with costs that do not arise out of the London Transport system in its entirety.
I should like to mention two other points. The first is the reference in the Report to the operation of branch linen and the fact that they must be kept going. I think that they could be kept going, but I say that on none of the other smaller branch lines should steam trains be operated. The diesel or diesel-electric engine, for instance, operates more quickly, requires less handling and servicing, and needs fewer men for its operation, thereby releasing some of the trained crews for operation on the more vital main line services.
That may be a question of capital expenditure, and I do not know what my right hon. Friend will have to say about it. It is, however, a very important point,


because it has been clearly established that diesel-operated engines are quite efficient. They can handle all the traffic of the branch lines, and can do so at far less cost than steam trains. I ask my right hon. Friend to give his attention to this suggestion.
My second question relates to the deficit on road haulage. I notice from the Report that the Road Haulage Executive have decided to concentrate upon maximum capacity 8-wheel vehicles. It seems to me that if the Commission are to concentrate on those vehicles and want the maximum use from them, they must get fuller use from them than at present. I am not at all satisfied with the amount of empty running miles, which is far too high. In a system which ought to be so highly integrated, a vehicle which delivers a load ought to secure another load to bring back from within a reasonable radius of its delivery point. The failure to do this is one of the things which, obviously, puts up costs very considerably.
It would be interesting also to know whether my right hon. Friend has any idea of the extent by which the deficit on road haulage could have been reduced had the 30 miles an hour speed limit, instead of the 20 miles an hour limit, been operated. The higher speed limit would cause no detriment to the workers, who would get extra pay from its working. Certainly, the more efficient use of vehicles and the better deployment of the capital involved, must obviously involve a reduction in the deficit if the higher limit was in force. The fact that it is not is a matter for some regret, but it seems to me that in the interests of efficiency and in the interests of a better transport system something in the way of a unification of speed limits ought to receive very urgent attention, and I am quite satisfied that it would be quickly reflected in the results in the Commission's Report.
I think that on balance the Commission have not done badly. I should have liked to see greater progress made by the Road Passenger Executive. It seems that they are going slowly at present in the integration of road services. I would say that many of the losses are inevitable and that if the railway industry in particular and the services generally need more capital, it is the duty of the Minister to press on

the Cabinet, in spite of capital restriction, that this is a vital service which ought not to be hampered or damaged by lack of capital development.

8.51 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think the House will agree that the first words in winding up the debate from this side of the House might properly be words of praise and tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, whose fortitude and patience are quite unsurpassed. This is the first debate in my experience where a right hon. Gentleman has not at some time or other intervened before now and the House will look forward, therefore, all the more to hearing the right hon. Gentleman when he speaks. It is an innovation and is perhaps one facet of the way in which debates on transport are slowly changing in character. The time is fast disappearing when the Transport Commission and the services that go with it can be regarded as still the baby of the Socialist Party necessitating a strongly marked party debate in the course of the confinement.
We are now arriving at a situation where the child, if not too healthy, is at any rate growing up and there is some disposition on the part of the parent, as we noticed in the speeches today, to criticise this ailing child and see whether he could not be stimulated into becoming a more robust person. The party on this side of the House is perhaps more in the nature of a wicked uncle looking on the scene, but tradition is that in the end wicked uncles always do the child a great deal of good.
The speeches of hon. Members opposite have been markedly critical in character, with the exception of two, those of the hon. Members for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), and for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). The hon. Member for Swansea, West, excused the Commission on the grounds of the state of full employment. He said that full employment had imposed an altogether unprecedented burden on them under which they were staggering and that the House ought to regard the whole process with a great deal of sympathy and understanding. But the Commission have had just as much an opportunity as anyone else to observe that full employment is now, and has been for about 10 years, the established policy of


both great parties in the State. They should have known it and demanded of the Government that they had their due share of the national resources to enable them to allow their enterprises to forge ahead.
Instead of that they are—as I shall show—at some disadvantage compared with some of the other nationalised industries and services of the country. Full employment, we all hope, is a permanent thing in our society and the Commission is not to be forgiven on the ground that it is staggering under a load of work resulting from that fact alone. It ought already to have planned in accordance with the generally accepted policy of the nation.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East, excused the Commission on all grounds altogether as far as I could see. He referred to the transport system of the country as a semi-social service. If we do so regard it and let into our minds the subsidy argument of course no criticism can ever begin to be effective, because the more the losses are the greater the subsidy. The more it becomes a social service the more one is pleased with it.
The ultimate and logical end of the argument is that the Commission should make enormous losses every year and be highly extravagant and that transport users should never pay a penny farthing for any of the services they use. If one accepts that argument then, of course, all criticism vanishes entirely.

Mr. Manuel: We do not accept the noble Lord's interpretation.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Members for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) touched upon the question of a subsidy. One of them called it a defence subsidy, the other a strategic subsidy. The attitude of the party on these benches is quite clear. We think—and here I begin to assail the hon. Member for Birkenhead for having said that we never made any suggestions—and have said repeatedly in these debates in the House that there is a case for a definite and clearly defined payment associated with defence and strategy.
We think that if it can be proved that certain railway services, certain branch lines, are absolutely requisite for the purpose of maintaining the safety of the State there ought to be a direct payment

for the use of those lines and services borne upon the defence Vote of the country.

Mr. Collick: Would the noble Lord be good enough to tell us when any such statement as that has come authoritatively from those benches?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If the hon. Member has listened to the speeches made during the last few years on this side of the House he will know that has been given vent to on several occasions.

Mr. Collick: May I press the hon. Gentleman?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: No, I have passed on from that topic.
The hon. Member went on to accuse us of never having made our policy clear. I should like to remind him that we have done so quite explicitly. In a number of debates we have demanded the decentralisation of the railway services, that the railways should acquire some commercial knowledge, and that they should introduce a better scheme of passenger operation.
On the question of flexibility, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) was quite clear today, as he always is. Once the transport system has been broken up into competing regions and services, flexibility can be introduced into charges schemes with the certainty that the consumer is served on quality and on price. But flexibility cannot possibly be granted to a system while it remains in a highly concentrated nationalised state.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Will the noble Lord define competition and the breaking up of the services?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Not tonight.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead claims to have done a great deal to initiate this debate, but I doubt whether he can substantiate that. From time immemorial those who sit on these benches have been accustomed to raise topics on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and this debate was staged by us.
On the question of the call up, whether the hon. Member likes it one way round or the other, he was supported by or he, in turn, supported my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth in suggesting that


at this time, in view of the possibility of grave danger to the railway services arising this winter, certain key men in vital spots should be exempted from National Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth urged the right hon. Gentleman to take his decision quickly upon that matter. I should like to reinforce that plea now in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something before we reach the end of this debate.
Likewise, on the question of the importation of coal from the United States, we have had congestion in the docks when coal has arrived there, and now, with the shortage of locomotive crews and the embargoes that have lately been applied, we want to be absolutely certain, first, that the coal will arrive early enough this summer so that it can be dispersed around the country before winter comes or, if that is not possible because the orders have not been placed in time, that a special effort will be made to concentrate the staff resources upon that task.
While I am on the subject of staff depletions, I would point out that the causes go back a very long way. It is no use saying that they have arisen recently. In these debates we have called attention to the statistics of locomotive men and of cleaners. The Commission should have tried to carry out the policy which the House has discussed on a number of occasions, of reducing certain personnel on the railways. The fault in the Commission lies in the fact that they have just allowed the reductions to take place haphazardly, and have not consciously pursued an informed policy of making reductions in those places where the staff was clearly redundant on minor services and in the fact that they have not sought to retain, and pay at a proper rate, those who are required for the vital services of the railways.
A good deal has been said about the deficit which is now at the level of £40 million. There is, of course, something to be said for the Transport Commission in their claim that delay has ensued in granting the charges increases. They dwell upon it at some length. It has not been pointed out so far in this debate that, although there was delay in the first case in granting charges increases,

there was no delay, or very little, in the second case.
There was no inquiry by the Transport Tribunal in 1951 before the 10 per cent. increase was proposed, and the Commission got what they wanted with very little delay indeed. Clearly, in these charges schemes, the whole burden of the work ought not to have to be repeated every time a charge is increased. The proposals ought to go through the Transport Tribunal very much more rapidly; but that is not by any means to say that the Commission can get away every time, automatically, with any charge increase which they feel they must impose upon the public.
No one, even in this debate, has expressed the situation more clearly than the non-party journal, the "Economist." On 14th July, it said:
It is possible to sympathise with the Commission's complaint that it cannot for ever fight a losing battle between rising costs and laggard charges; but it is another matter to deny the value of the Transport Tribunal as the one more or less effective arbiter of public accountability to which any of the nationalised industries has to submit.
It is not the fault of the Tribunal—any more than it is the fault of the Commission—that a persistent fall in the value of money makes its procedure so financially embarrassing for the Commission. These are matters that vitally affect the public, and if speed and flexibility were to mean merely that the Commission could obtain quickly all that it asked for without any attempt at public justification, the results would he deplorable.
To turn from that to the question of efficiency, we on these benches acknowledge that some improvement has been made by the railways in the last year. Their total working expenses per train mile have fallen by 11 per cent., or 2s., in the years since the industry was nationalised. Their ton miles per engine hour have risen from 450 in 1938 to 578 in 1950. One can go through this Report, page by page and through all the appendices, selecting the statistics which do the Report most good. One can also go through the Report, page by page and appendix by appendix, selecting those which do it some harm.
We must not be misled by the points on efficiency that have been taken by the Commission in the written report. There are statistics to the opposite effect, for example, in miles per train hour, the average was 9.15 in 1938, but it fell as low as 7.36 last December to January,


and the average for the year was only 8.36. Even if we concede the whole case in regard to the inferment of technical efficiency, there is nothing to be said, and the Commission do not attempt to comment on it, on the question of commercial efficiency. For example, page 388 of the Report shows the steady drop which has taken place in passenger takings, in 1948, £121.9 million; in 1949, £114 million; in 1950, £106.3 million.
Where is the aggressive, go-getting business man in British Railways? Where are the Butlins and the Fergusons of British Railways?
I was amazed by Paragraph 73 of the Report, which says:
It is often said that the cure for declining passenger receipts is to lower the fares. … A generalised lowering of fares on this scale would, in present circumstances, result in a considerable working loss.
Then there comes this surprising sentence:
If the public cannot afford to pay for services of a given quantity and quality at the appropriate level of cost,—
that is a good one—
then the quantity or quality of service offered must he decreased, and the budget must be balanced with higher fares at a slightly lower level of activity.
If the person who wrote that tried to find employment with Messrs. Woolworths, Messrs. Courtaulds or the Nuffield Organisation, he would be shown the front door.
I find that that kind of attitude in the Commission is very disquieting. There is the lack of any desire to go out and look for revenue. Take, for example, the table on page 71, which shows the relative costs per seat mile and per passenger mile. That particular table alone is an invitation to some enterprising commercial man, though he does not appear to have got on to the Commission so far, to go out and see what can be done about it, particularly on the stopping services and the branch lines.

Mr. Monslow: Would the noble Lord not agree that, having regard to the difficulties in running freight trains, priority ought to be given to freight over passenger trains at present?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am right off that point, and I am now talking about the stopping services on the main lines

and the branch line services. As most of the main lines have a slow road for freight services, that really does not apply.
Why cannot the Commission reduce the fares drastically on the stopping services and upon the branch lines, and carry out a scheme rather like that which the late Sir Kingsley Wood adopted in the Post Office in 1931, when he produced a cheap rate scheme for producing extra revenue? It was done by Sir Kingsley Wood with the cheap trunk call, with the result that Post Office revenues on the telephone side expanded enormously. I would like to see something of that kind done on the railways.
I must say a word or two about capital expenditure, because it has not yet been referred to and ought not to pass unnoticed. In paragraph 51, the Commission make the complaint, among their many plaintive appeals in this document, that the capital expenditure allowed
suffices only to patch and maintain the existing apparatus.
It is fair to charge the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with permitting the railways to expend on capital a proportionately less sum than other nationalised industries and services have been able to expend, and I would like to know why that has been the case, because there has been no public explanation about it.
In the year in question, they allowed the railways only £79 million or 6 per cent. of the total capital liabilities of the railways of £1,259 million. That 6 per cent. compares with 17 per cent. allowed on electricity, 14 per cent. on gas and 10 per cent, on coal, or, if one likes, a mean figure of 14 per cent. for all fuel and power services. I know that the Minister of Fuel and Power is a very well-known and forthright Parliamentary figure, but I am amazed and appalled that the right hon. Gentleman has proved to be worth less than 50 per cent. of the Minister of Fuel and Power. I would like to know why he has not been able to come up to scratch and to adopt the forceful processes of his colleague.
But, having said all that, the railways are still to blame, because out of the total of £81 million allowed to them—that is, the £79 million plus £2 million for another service—they, in fact, only spent £68 million in the year in question. What is


the matter with the Commission there? Why was there no queue of works lined up ready to be done the moment it was found, for example, that the extension of the Bakerloo Line, which would cost many millions, had to be abandoned? Where did the Commission go wrong on that?
Part of the staff difficulties of the railways is due to the question of lodging turns. Why did not the railways immediately get permission to spend—the right hon. Gentleman assisting—the balance of that money allowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on building new hostels for railway staff? I am told that not one new hostel was built for the railways in the year in question. The most that was done was a certain amount of refurbishing of old hostels.
I wish to say something on what I would entitle, "The essential predicament of the Commission." My hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) referred to the vagueness and indecisiveness of the Report and to the lack of comparative criteria. Those are not his words, but that was the purport of what he said. In my view, the Commission are essentially frustrated. They cannot make up their mind what their objectives are, and that is clear in almost every paragraph of the Report. Their duty to obey the Transport Act is in conflict with their business instincts.
Paragraph 96 (b) says that the outlook depends largely on
a greater willingness to accept changes, whether in conditions of work or in types of service or in proposals to integrate the Commission's services, and to avoid costly delaying action on each proposal for re-organisation.
The sense of that sub-paragraph is the will to carry out the thing, to concentrate, to organise and to integrate, but one has only to go two lines further down to read that the outlook for the Commission depends largely on
the introduction of new bases of charge for transport services, which will recognise that over a wide field the Commission's services are not a monopoly and that the ordinary principles of competitive business must therefore be allowed a greater place in the fixing of charges in detail.
How is it possible to run an organisation whereby if one concentrates and integrates competitive business is reduced

to nothing, whereas if one goes out for competitive business the whole idea and philosophy of concentration must be abandoned? The Commission are in that dilemma, that essential dichotomy of thought, every day of their lives. That is the reason why such nonsense is made of British transport and why this Report is so sad and so sensitive in its nature.
The Commission is like Gulliver held down by Lilliputians. This is the final theme on which I wanted to say a word. The Transport Commission now, under the process of nationalisation and integration, has all the technical power, all the resources, all the information and all the knowledge, and people who complain about the railways and complain about the road services—ranging from the right hon. Gentleman himself and his Department, through Parliament, to the technical organisations and down to the workers' unions—are relatively insignificant by comparison with it. That is the reason—the fundamental reason—why such a hash is being made of the transport system at the present time.
We all wish that the Commission would act like Gulliver in the end—burst its bonds and do something: but there is no agreement, even in the House of Commons let alone outside, about what the Commission should do. The Commission itself is frightened by criticism and cornered by legislation, and it hits back by words in this document instead of by deeds in public life. I believe that the fundamental reason for this frustration is, in fact, the monopoly or semi-monopoly of the Commission. The whole public, Parliament, and even the right hon. Gentleman are at its mercy because it has the technical power and the technical knowledge.
To force a giant to bestir himself one must have a giant's strength. The political and the technical power of the Commission's critics add up to nothing at all. All that was foreseen by the party on these benches during the passage of the Transport Act. It was, in fact, the philosophical foundation of the opposition to the Measure—opposition to the crass folly of nationalising the industry.
We have nothing like it in B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.C. because those Corporations are


pitted against enormous groups of technical men overseas, and that forces up the spirit of competition, increases the skill and wisdom of the concerns, and the quality of service to the public. As long as B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C., nationalised as they are, are in competition with great organisations outside, they will be all right; but when we nationalise an internal industry, which has not great groups of technical men outside to force it to modify its methods, then the rot sets in. There is not yet corruption. We have nothing like that yet. But the rot has begun to set in.
There is no way out except to bring the men with the technical knowledge and power up against their own like and kind in formal, controlled competition; that is, by decentralisation, by denationalisation in its modern form. When that has been done much that is now vague and uncertain will become real and determinable. When regions are pitted against regions losses will become a spur to effort in each. Efficiency will become a standard set by the efforts of different groups of technical men, and the quality of the services will be tested by the criterion of freer consumer choice.
The Minister of Transport, on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill, used these words:
I contend that, taking the distribution of population in this country, the small distances we have to travel compared with many other countries, and the concentration and magnitude of its industries, there are no physical or financial reasons why we should not have the most efficient, comfortable, speedy and cheap system of transport in the world … Give this Labour Government five years of power in this field of transport services, and the people of this country will see more progress than would be made in 500 years of Tory rule."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 1623 and 1637.]
The wheel has come full circle, and we are seeing today on the railway system of this country the grand failure of the Socialist conception of transport.
We on these benches are much more modest in our proposals. We give no grandiose pledges such as the right hon. Gentleman dared to give six years ago. All we say is that we much hope that the great honour of restoring the fortunes and spirit of service of British Railways will fall to the party on these benches before many months are up.

9.20 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The quotation with which the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), concluded his remarks was not made six years ago. It was made in 1947, and I remind him that the five years are not yet up.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman will have to work fast.

Mr. Barnes: I should like for a moment to refer to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) who opened the debate. When we listened to and enjoyed his very vigorous, humorous and witty criticism, levelled at myself and the British Transport Commission, it was very difficult to appreciate that he was not well at the time, but was delivering that speech in considerable distress. I am sure that I express the view of all quarters of the House in saying that we sincerely hope his efforts and his vigour will not aggravate his disability, and, although time is short, we trust that he will be able to return before the House adjourns.
The major concern which has been expressed—and it has not been levelled against the Commission or the Executive directly—reflected the general concern of hon. Members in all parts of the House and opinion in the country at the grave shortage of certain key staffs in the railways, which is likely to affect rail transport in the forthcoming winter. I and the Government naturally share that concern. It is a real concern. But it is no use hon. Members approaching this problem with the idea that it has anything to do with either nationalised transport or any other form of transport. It springs from a set of circumstances which prevail, and have prevailed recently.
This has been a developing problem in our economic and industrial life, and has become acute in the railway service over recent months. There is no denying that, because of the special circumstances which have caused the country to concentrate on certain industries for export purposes in recent years, there has been progress and an improvement in the standard of remuneration, mechanisation, and improved processes of production in those industries.
Industry generally has moved to the 44-hour week and the five-day week. Transport happens to be a service that


could not move parallel with the changing pattern of industry and labour conditions. The railways must and do run 24 hours a day for seven days a week.
Then the circumstances which necessitated the importation of coal during last winter reversed the normal movements of wagons, on short distance hauls, from the pits to the ports, and many of them had to be moved over long distances. This coincided, as everyone knows, with a very severe epidemic of influenza, and I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House should recognise that particularly for those in the shunting and marshalling yards who were out in the open under the worst possible conditions, the incidence of sickness was bound to be greater. So we had both the aggravation of operational difficulties and the drift of labour away, which has become a very acute problem.
The Railway Executive and the unions have been discussing this problem continuously. The Government obviously come in on a matter of deferment. I do not think that any hon. Member of this House can be but aware of the extreme difficulties that will confront any Government that is trying to build up its defence forces under the peculiar conditions that prevail today, when the need is to increase our defence output and preparedness under conditions which do not prevail in war and, at the same time, endeavour by every means in its power to maintain and increase the export capacity of this country for the purpose of maintaining our balance of payments.
This is an exceedingly serious problem under these accumulative conditions, especially when we take into consideration that once deferment is decided upon for any particular grade of labour similar arguments can be advanced by many other industries as well. The Government are fully alive to the need of maintaining the transport services of this country, particularly the railways, and while no decision has been made at the present moment, a proposal is being examined.
I cannot in any way indicate how it will emerge from the examination of all the Departments concerned, such as the Defence Departments, the Ministry of Labour my own Department, and the

Railway Executive. Criticism has been directed mainly to myself which I thought was rather shallow, although personal criticism does not affect me very much. Nevertheless, as hon. Members have indicated, in times of war and when war actually exists, the military Services require a railway operating unit.
The proposal that is being examined by the Government at the moment is in relation to the needs for defence and this peculiar in-between or transitional problem with which we are faced today. The necessity of keeping our industrial life at its fullest capacity is being examined to ascertain whether we can meet the military purpose of the call-up of personnel and at the same time marry it to the current railway needs of the time.

Mr. Boothby: What military purpose can be met by calling up men who would not be called up in the event of war?

Mr. Barnes: It becomes difficult for me as a Departmental Minister to assume the responsibility of advancing the arguments of the Services, as the hon. Member ought to appreciate. I am indicating at the present moment the lines on which the Government are examining this problem, with full knowledge and appreciation of all the difficulties involved.

Mr. Collick: Last year 4,000 locomotive men were called up. Does my right hon. Friend not accept that the men now being called up would be told to keep to their civilian jobs in any state of emergency? What, therefore, is the sense of calling up these 4,000 men into the Army when they would be needed here on their industrial job in the event of an emergency?

Mr. Barnes: That may be the case. My hon. Friend can hold his individual view on that.

Mr. Collick: It is the case.

Mr. Barnes: It is my purpose—and I cannot go any further than that at the present moment—to indicate the lines upon which the examination is taking place.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) quoted certain figures of train crews, and I should like to give him the position about the staff. I cannot go back over a long period, because I have not got the figures with me at the moment.


In the footplate grades in March, 1950, there were 94,813 men. By December the figure had been reduced to 92,360 men, and in March of this year it had declined to 89,000 men. It is expected that by the middle of this year it will reach 88,605.

Mr. Renton: Those are the approximate figures upon which I was working.

Mr. Barnes: That is a steady decline of over 6,000 individuals in those grades. In the case of guards, signalmen and goods shunters, at the same date it was 63,746 and has now declined to 59,595, a drop of roughly 4,000. This shows a steady decline in key grades, and we are bound to remember the severe difficulty we had at the end of last winter and the problem of meeting a similar difficulty in the forthcoming winter period.
Members on all sides of the House have levelled their criticism freely against the administration and services of the British Transport Commission. That is not to be wondered at. It would indeed be a difficult thing not to find some criticism against the rail, road or inland waterways' systems. In the whole of my life I have never known a time when I could not criticise some aspect of the transport problem in this country. It is not difficult to pick out defects in our present system and level criticism against it.
I want to put the general case for the British Transport Commission. That is my responsibility. In view of the criticisms which have been made, someone ought to accept that responsibility and put in an objective way the case for the Commission. If I do that, I want it to be understood that I do not do it in any spirit of complacency. I recognise that this is a difficult and intricate problem and that we are by no means yet at the end of our consideration of this matter.
I should like to clear away one or two points that have been raised and which do not fit into my general presentation of the case. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), dealing with London affairs, wished to know about the engineering and financial difficulties that have prevented me from sanctioning the carrying out of the Bakerloo Camberwell extension. I interjected by saying that it was mainly financial considerations.
That really meant that the engineering problems, which of course could have been surmounted in carrying out that

tube extension, were of such a character that, in my view and the view of the Government, they were not justified at the present moment. The other point was whether the change-over from trams to buses is proceeding according to schedule. Roughly, that is going ahead according to schedule, and I have no doubt that it will be completed more or less to schedule.
I will turn to the main consideration of this debate. I am gratified that Members in all parts of the House have acknowledged the quality of the B.T.C.'s report on this occasion. It is compiled, presented and illustrated in a form that not only the technical people can understand but lay opinion can grasp fairly readily and easily, respecting the types of problem to which we have to address ourselves.
I indicated that I did not view the out-turn of 1950 from all the British transport services with any sense of complacency. I reject equally strongly the idea that the results are in any way disastrous or that the railways of this country face a hopeless future and can be considered a bankrupt concern. There is no real evidence at all to justify this approach to the problem. Let me analyse the position and try to present it in a fair, objective and realistic way to this House. The B.T.C.'s services in 1950 made a surplus, in round figures, of £40 million, apart from the central charges and before the central charges were put against that surplus. The central charges amounted to £54.1 million, which turned that surplus apparently into a deficit of £14 million.
Hon. Members ought to ask themselves, in fairness: What are the central charges? I propose to cite two of them. There is the interest on Transport Stock of £35 million and, on their other borrowings, of £10 million, which make an interest payment of £45 million, out of the £54.1 million of the central charges.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Barnes: It is very difficult to speak if one is continually interrupted.

Mr. Thomas: I merely wished to bring out the point that these charges that we call "interest charges," would be called "dividends" in ordinary business parlance.

Mr. Barnes: I think I could have presented it just as strongly if my hon. Friend had permitted me to continue. In addition to that, there was the railway freight rebate fund, which was a payment mainly to coal and agriculture amounting to £3.7 million. Both coal and agriculture are today more prosperous industries than the railway industry, and yet of the £54.1 million central charges two items, representing interest on stock and the repayment of the freight rebate fund for coal and agriculture, amounted to £48,500,000 out of the £54 million.
I want to make a further point at this stage in order to emphasise the measurement of the difficulties which confront us. While they are serious, they are not disastrous in the sense that they are being presented to the House this evening. For instance, if the increase of 16⅔ percent. on freight charges which was ultimately sanctioned by Parliament and came into operation towards the end of the first quarter of the year had been in operation at the beginning of the year when the British Transport Commission applied for it, the accounts of the Commission would have been in balance at the end of their year.
I want to present to the House another measurement which is even more effective than the measurements which I have quoted. The loss of nearly £40 million has been emphasised; play has been made upon it tonight, and it forms a good deal of the propaganda of hon. Members opposite. It has accumulated over three years. The turnover of the British Transport Commission services during those three years was £1,500 million. I will now give a measurement of the margin that that represents. Over that period, if for every 100 pence paid by passengers or traders for the services which they have received from the British Transport Commission, whether rail, road or anything else, the charge had been 103d. the loss of £40 million would have been wiped out.
I see an hon. Member smiling; it is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh and jeer. I am dealing with a vital service to the nation. Hon. Member after hon. Member has emphasised how vital the railways and these other services are to the country, and I am dealing with a loss of £40 million accumulated over three years and relating it to

the total turnover of these services over the three years. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the increases which have taken place in the case of coal, cotton, wool and rubber and other commodities. They should then recognise that the measurement between the loss of £40 million which has accumulated over the three years on a price increase of 55 per cent. over 1939 on passenger charges and 99 per cent. on freight charges and financial stability is a figure of 3d. on every 100 pence turnover.
I do not underestimate the fact that we are dealing here with a difficult situation. However. I do not think that hon. Members, either on this side or on the other side of the House, are being fair to the railways of this country in imagining that the facts we are facing today are a disaster. I hope that the figures I have given will settle the approach to this problem.
Now I want to turn to the four alternatives which are advanced from time to time to deal with this problem. The first is that the State should meet these losses with a subsidy. That is followed by the view that the strategic value of the railways should be assessed and a payment made for Defence purposes. Another proposal is that the interest rate should be cut or abolished, which would mean the State dishonouring its guarantee. Then there is the further proposal that there should be a drastic curtailment of C transport in this country.
It is no use dismissing lightly suggestions of this kind made by responsible people when advanced as a solution of this problem. Whatever may be the ultimate decision of Parliament, I do not consider that any of these solutions are correct at the moment. I was glad that Lord Hurcomb, who has an exceedingly difficult task, should have rejected the idea of a subsidy.
Another criticism I have met is that I am averse to questioning and criticism on transport matters in this House. It is not true. I have refused to be subjected to the type of question which my Department has not the administration to handle, and which is clearly the responsibility of the British Transport Commission governed by statute. Also I have set my mind against duplicating in my own Department the type of staff already in existence in the British Transport Com-


mission. I welcome as much, if not more than, anyone the review and debate of transport matters from time to time.
As a matter of fact there is no evidence that transport matters are inadequately considered in this House. In the Session of 1950 there were 27 hours of Parliamentary time given to general debate. There were 14 adjournments and 77 Questions, and I claim that that represents a reasonable proportion of Parliamentary time.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Questions were inadequate.

Mr. Barnes: But reference was made to the fact that, before transport became nationalised, the Minister was responsible as the ornamental head of the railway industry, and was subjected to all kinds of questions which he could not answer except by being dependent on an administration which he in no way effectively controlled.
Be that as it may, in my view the House ought to address itself, in fairness to the British Transport Commission, to what I consider is the psychology of the transport problem of this country, namely, that the British public and traders generally resist all attempts on the part of the B.T.C. to adjust its charges to its rising costs. No other industry meets that resistance. The British Transport Commission in their Report—I think, rightly—point out the time-lag between when their costs go up—when it becomes apparent to their accountants that an adjustment must be made—and the time when it becomes operative.
I remind hon. Members of the experience of this year. The 10 per cent. increase on freight charges was imposed, and at the same time I announced that the B.T.C. were ready to submit their passenger charges scheme to the Transport Tribunal. That scheme was submitted in April. It arose from obvious, well-known and measurable increases in wages, items such as oil and rubber, and other things. All over the country, private road passenger services and municipal services are applying either to the licensing authorities or to my Department for increases in road passenger fares.
In the case of the railways, the B.T.C. submitted their charges scheme to the Transport Tribunal in April, and as far as one can judge the first hearing by the

Tribunal of the scheme will not take place until October. Because of the rising costs, I understand that the railway unions are preparing, or have already prepared and submitted, a new set of proposals.
What other industry could face such a situation? I do not for a moment suggest we can wipe out this state of affairs. I was not able to abolish the Tribunal machinery when the Transport Act was introduced, but I suggest that if Parliament is aware that the scheme was submitted in April and the Tribunal will not begin to function with its hearings until October, it is no use rejecting the comment of the British Transport Commission on a matter of this kind.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I think that the right hon. Gentleman indicated earlier by nodding that he would tell us by what time he had decided that the freight and other charges schemes would come out.

Mr. Barnes: Certainly. When I made my statement, the Commission were ready to submit their charges scheme to the Transport Tribunal. Since then I have received representations from the coastal shipping interests, who are very much concerned with the charges scheme and have pressed me to delay its introduction to enable discussions to take place betwen the coastal shipping interests and the Transport Commission.
One hon. Member, I believe, in quoting the increase that has taken place in transport charges, mentioned that coastal shipping charges are already 110 per cent. above the pre-war rate, which is the highest increase in transport charges to have taken place. Everyone who is familiar with this problem recognises the utmost importance of the coastal shipping interests to the country, particularly in war time, as well as in peace time. It is desirable, therefore, that any transport charges, or any alteration in the system of charges, on British Railways, should take into consideration the interests of coastal shipping. That body represented to me very strongly that it was desirable to delay the introduction of the charges scheme beyond 5th August so that discussions could take place.
I consulted the Transport Commission, and Lord Hurcomb informed me that they were quite willing and anxious to


enter into discussions with the coastal shipping interests. He further stated that no harm would be done—in fact, they would welcome it—if a little further time was allowed for polishing up and adjusting their charges scheme, but I understand that it will not be delayed beyond the end of this year. That is the reason why the charges scheme has been delayed.
I wish to say a word or two about the area road passenger schemes. I frankly am disappointed that these have proceeded so slowly, but at the same time the effect and improvement of these on the finances of the British Transport Commission can be exaggerated. I do not think it is sufficiently appreciated that, although there has been delay in these area schemes, the British Transport Commission have been steadily acquiring road passenger undertakings and today have something like 14,000 road passenger vehicles under their direct control and administration.
In addition, the Commission have large shareholding interests, largely taken over with the railway companies, in private road passenger undertakings, including the British Electric Traction Company, which has been most violent in its opposition to the area transport scheme. Probably today the British Transport Commission either own or have a share interest in the value of something like 70 per cent. of the road passenger interests in this country.
Nevertheless, whilst that represents preparatory work towards the area schemes, I want to recall to hon. Members that the basic principle of the procedure of the area schemes was that they should only materialise through local consent and local option. There is no principle of compulsion in the building up of the area schemes and so far many local authorities have resisted this process. I think unwisely.
The British Transport Commission are preparing schemes for the North-East area, for East Anglia and the South-West, but they are making slow progress and will make slow progress until there is a larger body of public opinion locally willing to co-operate. Nevertheless, as I have indicated, progress in this direction is not entirely slowed down, and I sincerely trust that before long, because many local authorities are experiencing

financial difficulty in running their own undertakings, we shall have a change of opinion in that direction.
If hon. Members in all parts of the House will look at these figures objectively and study especially the way I have presented some of the figures, they will see that, taking business experience in other walks of life, there is no overwhelming difficulty against the British transport paying its way. I believe that if we are sufficiently wise not to abolish the transport tribunal machinery but to see that it works much more rapidly, as any other business affair works more rapidly, to a large extent we shall have cleared the way for national transport to prove that it is a successful and desirable thing.

Orders of the Day — TSHEKEDI KHAMA (BANISHMENT)

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I am particularly grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me now, for I propose to utilise the opportunity you have so given me to raise the question of the conditions in the Bamangwato Reserve in Bechuanaland and, once again, the position of Tshekedi Khama. As is well known, the House will be rising this week and there will be no opportunity of raising this matter again until we re-assemble some time in October. This is an urgent matter affecting not only this tribe; I am afraid it is likely to have repercussions over quite a vast area of Africa.
Since the debate took place in this House on 26th June, the situation amongst the Bamangwato people has undoubtedly greatly deteriorated. It will be remembered that in that debate the Secretary of State referred to the fact that Tshekedi Khama was unpopular. He went out of his way to emphasise that, and he read a telegram to the House which he had received from Cape Town stating that the return of Tshekedi Khama to his own home would be viewed by his own people with apprehension, and indeed going so far as to say that if he did return home the tribe would scatter.
It will be remembered too, that the reading of that telegram preceded the offer to submit the question whether Tshekedi Khama should be allowed to return home to his own people to a kgotla which should be held in the presence of hon.


Members of this House, who would be invited to attend as observers. The reading in this House of that telegram from the Resident Commissioner in South Africa to the right hon. Gentleman, which had been communicated back to South Africa, was not the kind of thing that would conduce towards a fairer trial by his own people of Tshekedi Khama.
But before I come to what has happened since, let me point out to the House a few matters. The kgotla was to be summoned to ascertain whether Tshekedi Khama's banishment should be ended and he should be allowed to return to his own home. It is just as well to point out, first, that before Tshekedi Khama was banished he was not the object of any accusation by anybody amongst his own people—not a single word against him by any one of them. Secondly, no case was brought against him before his own people or before his own people assembled in kgotla. Thirdly, he was not banished by his own people, he was not banished by his tribe. He was banished not by an order of his tribe but by an order made by the right hon. Gentleman.
No banishment in the long history of this tribe has, so far as we can ascertain, ever taken place in that territory without a full and fair trial before it. That has been the law and the custom of this tribe from time immemorial. I should have thought that was in keeping with what would be regarded as the proper administration of justice in any country, in accordance with what is often referred to as natural justice, but it has remained for an English Secretary of State to introduce a new form of administration and to punish a man by order without holding any trial of any kind whatever, and bringing amongst these primitive or so-called primitive people a new form of administration of justice.
And be it noted against whom it was directed: a man against whom no charge was brought, a man who had had the confidence not only of his own people but of successive Commissioners and successive Secretaries of State for 23 years, a man who had earned the respect of successive Governors and, above all, had earned the respect of General Smuts. He was banished not by his tribe, but by the order of the British Government.

That, I submit, was a wrong. It is a continuing wrong directed against this man. It is a wrong which can only be put right—and it should be put right—by the persons who committed it.
If somebody commits a wrong, it is not to be expected that that wrong should be righted by somebody else. It should be righted by the person who commits the wrong. In this case, this wrong has been committed by the Secretary of State in banishing this man, and it can be righted only by the Secretary of State making it possible for him to go back and, when he does go back, protecting him against wrongdoers and evildoers.
It is an extraordinary situation which is to be seen today, and which has been seen for the last two years. The man who has been banished was trusted during all these years. His position now, so far as the Government are concerned, has been taken by a man called Keaboka, a member of a faction which was not only opposed to Tshekedi Khama but which had caused trouble to his father, to whom tributes have been paid by the right hon. Gentleman and all his predecessors as a very remarkable man who looked after his people and who—the first time he met a white man—came into contact with David Livingstone.
This man who is now taking the place of Tshekedi Khama, so far as the Government are concerned, is the adviser of this faction. Tshekedi Khama has received testimonials from many sources, but who is Keaboka? He is a man who is not only causing trouble now, but who caused trouble during the war. He caused so much trouble during the war that he had to be detained. He has been described as a young man, unstable in character, who has never held an administrative post; yet he is taking the place of the chief at Serowe and he has been doing so ever since Tshekedi was banished from the area of his tribe.
That is the man whom the Secretary of State and the District Commissioner have relied upon during these years. Of course, that man hates Tshekedi and all that Tshekedi stands for, and has stood for. During the whole period that Tshekedi has been there, from the time when he was put in charge of the small boy aged four and a half who was to become the Chief, and who is today


regarded by his people as the Chief, there has been no trouble whatever among these people. There has been no rioting. Certainly, there have been no threats offered against anyone, and no victimisation.
But what is the position today? There are rioting threats, victimisation, fear, and peaceful people who have done no wrong have to seek protection around the Residence. Why? Because they are not anti-Tshekedi Khama. After the debate on 26th June—

Mr. Paget: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, has not the whole of this trouble started since the Liberal Party started making trouble?

Mr. Davies: If this trouble has arisen because the Liberal Party cares about the freedom of a single man, it is something of which I can be proud. I respect the individual whoever he may be. I refuse to have anybody victimised, wherever he may be. I am entitled to express that view, and I do not think that the hon. and learned Member gets the support of a single man on his side of the House.
After the debate of 26th June, Tshekedi Khama communicated with the right hon. Gentleman, or his Department, and what did he say? He said that he was anxious to co-operate in summoning the kgotla, but that he wanted, of course, to be quite sure that it would be properly summoned, that there would be a fair opportunity given to him of presenting his case before the kgotla, that they would be free to support him and that no prior directions should be given to anyone. He wanted to know when it would be summoned, what length of time there would be for the people to come and what notice could be given. Of course, he also wanted time in which he himself could go amongst his people freely and talk to them, remembering that he has been absent for two years now and that the most poisonous rumours and statements have been made against him by the people who hate him.
Before any reply was received to his letters, which were written, I think, on 30th June and 2nd July, disturbing news reached him from Serowe that meetings were being held by his enemies, the whole object being to create feeling against

him, and that these meetings were summoned or presided over by Keaboka. Not content with even holding the meetings, men were sent out from the meetings to threaten and terrify those who were regarded as Tshekedi's friends, and all those who were opposed to Tshekedi Khama were threatened in this way.
One Saturday, it is said that several hundred men entered Tshekedi Khama's old home and forced the people who were there to go outside. Ultimately, these people had to seek the protection of the Commissioner, at his residence. What is more, tribal trucks were used by these people to go from village to village to threaten the people, and the whole object was to drive away from Serowe—and this will become plainer in a moment, when I read a message which I have received as to what was happening yesterday—to drive away from Serowe, lock, stock and barrel, the men, and the goods belonging to them, who dared to support Tshekedi Khama.
I could read a whole number of letters and telegrams which I have received, and which have come from that area since 26th June, but I will content myself with reading a short summary contained in a letter written to the right hon. Gentleman's Department on 11th July by the solicitors acting for Tshekedi Khama. They wrote:
We are instructed to put on record the facts as they appear to us from the reports reaching us of the disturbances in Serowe.
On the 5th July, a Chief's kgotla was held. It was an official assembly in the official place and not a mere casual meeting over which the District Commissioner might have had no jurisdiction.
At that kgotla the persons assembled were informed that Tshekedi Khama was returning to the Bamangwato Reserve to claim the chieftainship and that they should object to his return.
That is the kind of statement that is being made throughout—that he was claiming the chieftainship, although he has put it on record as plainly as a man can do that he was not claiming the chieftainship, not only for himself but also for his children, and the direct result of this—

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clear up the point as to who made that statement about the chieftainship? By whom was that made?

Mr. Davies: I am reading from a letter which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, was sent to him by the solicitors.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that somebody said Tshekedi Khama had not renounced the chieftainship. Would he tell us who had said that?

Mr. Davies: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman himself—I have got the letters and correspondence here—knows quite well that these rumours were being circulated all the time. He will remember that when the first trouble arose, Tshekedi Khama asked that the Commission should inquire into it and put an end to it. He actually wrote to the District Commissioner asking him to inquire into it so that the rumour might be stopped once and for all.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just announced to the House that somebody made the statement, I think he ought to say who made it.

Mr. Davies: It is contained in the very letter I am reading to the House.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman please read it again?

Mr. Davies: I am reading it. The original is in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman, and I have only a copy.
At that kgotla the persons assembled were informed"—

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say by whom, please?

Mr. Davies: It must have been by the persons acting at the kgotla—
that Tshekedi Khama was returning to the Bamangwato Reserve to claim the chieftainship and that they should object to his return.
As a direct result of this, on the same day some 50 persons went to Tshekedi's house, which Rasebolai is occupying"—
I understand he is a relative of Tshekedi—
and where Rasebolai and other supporters of Tshekedi's cause were then present and demanded that they should leave the Bamangwato Reserve"—
that is, the whole area—
Rasebolai and the others refused and no further action or disturbance occurred then.
On 7th July Rasebolai and others while in Tshekedi's house (not while in the street) were

attacked by a crowd of over 100 men led by a member of the Sekgome family and were forced outside the house and the yard. Several of Rasebolai's supporters were seized and placed on a lorry. Rasebolai and two others were rescued by a police car. The lorry was later intercepted by the Police and the other men were released.
There have been disturbances also at Palapye, Mahalapye and Shoshong. At Mahalapye a kgotla was held at which the same propaganda was put to those present as at the kgotla at Serowe. It is significant that these are the places at which the Sekgome family have influence and there can he little doubt but that they are responsible for the misrepresentations of Tshekedi Khama's cause and the resulting incidents. The incidents are not a spontaneous demonstration of unpopular feeling towards Tshekedi.
Rasebolai and his supporters acknowledged, with gratitude, the police protection given to them and we note Mr. Secretary Gordon-Walker's assurance that the offenders will be prosecuted. We must point out our dissatisfaction with two matters, however, namely:—

1. That the offenders were not arrested there and then and charged with the offences which they have so obviously committed, and
2. That Rasebolai and his supporters are now virtually imprisoned instead of the offenders; it would seem more reasonable that the lawless elements should be taken into custody at once instead of the police cordoning off Rasebolai and his supporters because of the continued freedom of a few irresponsible offenders.

Having regard to these incidents and having regard to the apparent difficulties in your framing replies to us upon our question as to how the proposed tribal kgotla is to he convened and conducted, we are instructed to propose that there should be a judicial inquiry into the proper method of convening and conducting the proposed kgotla.
As we have indicated throughout our correspondence with you, our client accepts Mr. Secretary Gordon-Walker's proposal for a kgotla provided that it is strictly in accordance with native custom. That it will be so convened and conducted is becoming increasingly doubtful as the situation develops and there appears to be doubt in the minds of the Administration upon the methods and course to be adopted. That doubt could be resolved by the inquiry we have suggested which could take the form of:—

1. A special commission to be held at, say Mafeking; or
2. A petition, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to the Privy Council."

That is a summary, as I understand it, of the messages which have come from Serowe. On the same day as that letter was sent, the Secretary of State sent his offer to Tshekedi Khama. This is the letter:
I am directed by Mr. Secretary Gordon-Walker to furnish the following information


in reply to your letters of 29th June, 2nd July and 7th July.
Obviously this does not apply to the one I have just read out. Those letters crossed.
As stated in the House of Commons, the Government intend to invite the Bamangwato tribe to hold a further kgotla attended by observers to determine the tribe's views on the question whether Mr. Tshekedi Khama, having renounced all claim to the chieftainship"—
those are the words of this letter from the right hon. Gentleman's Department: "having renounced all claim to the chieftainship"—
should be allowed to return to the Bamangwato Reserve as a private individual. The Secretary of State hopes that observers will be ready to leave the United Kingdom by air within a fortnight. On their arrival in the Bamangwato Reserve and in their presence a meeting will be held with representatives of the inhabitants of the Reserve.
I hope that the House will observe that—"representatives of the inhabitants of the Reserve." How were they to be found? Who was to choose them? How were they to be elected?
Detailed arrangements for the kgotla cannot, therefore, he settled until these discussions have taken place and the Secretary of State has received the views of the observers. This must also apply to questions such as the date of the kgotla and your client's representations regarding the interval which should elapse between the summons for and the holding of a kgotla will be made known to the observers. The Secretary of State wishes to repeat what he said in the House of Commons on 26th June about Mr. Khama's entry into the Bamangwato Reserve for the purpose of the kgotla.
Then the letter quotes from the right hon. Gentleman's speech:
There are some doubts"—
said the right hon. Gentleman,
under native law and custom of Tshekedi's rights to attend such a Kgotla. I say that the exclusion order will not operate as a bar to his attending. After all, that is all the Government can do in this matter. I would go further and say that I personally think it would be right that he should attend. But it is not for me, and, I suggest, neither is it for the House, with propriety, to over-ride high-handedly native law and custom and the regular and normal way of doing these things. We must pay some attention to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 1236.]
I hope notice will be taken of that statement by the right hon. Gentleman in view of the statement which comes further down in this letter, which goes on:
The Secretary of State's intention, subject to consultation with representatives of the inhabitants of the Reserve in the presence of the

observers, and after receiving the views of the observers, is that during the period from the date on which the decision to hold a kgotla, attended by Mr. Khama, is taken until the date on which the kgotla is held Mr. Khama should be at liberty to be in the Reserve. Therefore, in that event, the exclusion order under Section 3 of Proclamation No. 15 of 1907, which must be renewed after Mr. Khama's return to the Bechuanaland Protectorate, would not operate as a bar on his entry into the Reserve; the necessary permission for entry would be given in writing as provided in the Proclamation.
Mr. Gordon-Walker therefore suggests that Mr. Khama would be well advised to arrange his arrival in the Bechuanaland Protectorate about the same time as the observers, that is, about 24th July, so that his entry into the Reserve should not be delayed. As Mr. Khama is aware, the U.K. Government will be responsible for the cost of his air passage back to Bechuanaland and this Department would welcome information about Mr. Khama's wishes in regard to a suitable booking.
The Government are at present considering the arrangements that may have to be made for Mr. Khama's own personal security from molestation while in the Reserve, and he will be given further information about this later. It may be necessary to request Mr. Khama to keep the Administration advised of his movements so that any steps deemed necessary for his protection can be taken.
To turn to the detailed questions set out in your letter of 29th June: (1) and (5). Section 4 of the Bechuanaland Protectorate (Bamangwato Reserve) Administration Proclamation No. 10 of 1950 at present provides for the assembly of the tribe in kgotla and the appointment of a person to preside. Both questions will be settled in the presence of the observers after their arrival.
(2) The Administration has made and will make clear the purpose of the kgotla as described earlier in this letter and that your client has renounced all claim to the chieftainship.
(3) The Government's purpose is that the proposed kgotla should be as widely representative of the inhabitants of the Reserve as possible. The Government have no objection to chiefs and representatives of other tribes being invited to attend. But, as your client is aware, these are matters that are normally governed by native law and custom and cannot be settled until there has been discussion with representatives of the inhabitants of the Reserve in the presence of the observers.
(4) The Government's intention is that procedure at the proposed kgotla will as far as possible be in accord with custom. Your client will, however, realise that the proposed kgotla attended by observers is probably without precise precedent. It is for this reason impossible to determine all the detailed arrangements until there has been discussion with the representatives of the inhabitants of the Reserve in the presence of the observers.
That is the position. It is not a kgotla summoned in accordance with custom as


understood, but, as the right hon. Gentleman says in his letter, it is something for which there had been no precedent in the past. Tshekedi Khama asked that it should be called in the form in which it had been called from time immemorial.
It is necessary that I should read the reply to that letter. It is rather a long letter, and I will only read extracts from it. It says
Our client expresses his regret that the questions put in our letter of the 29th ultimo have been relegated to the meeting described in your letter and he instructs us to say that the procedure detailed in your letter is quite unacceptable to him.
As to paragraph 2, with regard to the Government's intention to invite the Bamangwato Tribe to hold a further kgotla to determine the tribe's views on the question whether Tshekedi Khama should be allowed to return to his home in the Bamangwato Reserve as a private individual, we point out:—(a) Tshekedi Khama was not banished by the Bamangwato Tribe. No kgotla was called to consider his position in any manner whatsoever. (b) He was banished by the order of the British Government alone. (c) He was banished without a charge of any kind being made against him, and, of course, without trial. (d) It is threatened in your letter that his banishment will be continued by the British Government and by its order.
Our client requires the withdrawal of the threat of continuation of the banishment order, which was in his view a wrong which should be righted by the British Government, and to be allowed to return to his home as a private individual. If on his return home any threats are made or action taken by anyone against him, his family or his property, it is the duty of the British Government to protect him, his family and his property.
This leads us to paragraph 6, under which advice of movements by our client may be required. Reports received by our client and by us show clearly that the present disturbances are local and not tribal and that they are instigated by one man Keaboka. His personal assistance in the assaults made upon our client's supporters justify his immediate arrest. If that step were taken, the disturbances would cease and there would be no cause for protective measures in respect of our client and his supporters. Surely this is the one way that law and order can be maintained.
Then he goes on to refer to how the kgotla would ordinarily be called. I am not going to read all this long letter, but I had to read the letter from the right hon. Gentleman so that I would not be accused of reading only pieces of it.
In the meantime requests had been made to the Conservative Party and to the Liberal Party to nominate observers to go out. I am not quite sure of the date, but it was some time about the

date of those letters. I understand the Conservative Party refused; the Liberal Party certainly refused.

Mr. George Wigg: Why?

Mr. Davies: I have given my reason. In the first place, we thought it wrong that a wrong which had been committed by the Government and could only be put right by the Government should be thrown on to somebody else, namely, a kgotla, to try to put right the wrong the Government had done. It was really hiding behind the people themselves to avoid a responsibility which had fallen upon the right hon. Gentleman.
Secondly, we felt that no good purpose could possibly be achieved by anyone going out for a few days to try to ascertain what was the position, going about from place to place, hearing now this lot and then that lot, and trying to find out what the position was. I am not certain that there is anyone in this House who could answer the questions properly. For those reasons we refused to appoint a representative, and since then, as is well known to the House, three observers have been sent who are not Members of the House.
They have gone out and they have quite obviously met separate people in separate meetings. They have met those who were opposed to Tshekedi and those who are Tshekedi's friends. Quite clearly there is trouble and increasing excitement, and those who are against Tshekedi have had a free run, and are still having a free run, while Tshekedi's friends have been terrified and threatened. Does anyone think that, in these circumstances, it is fair to submit this man's future to a decision to be undertaken by these people at present? Does anyone think it is fair to do this when there is such a state of excitement, and when these rumours, which are known to be false, are going about?
I think it is only right that I should give the House the information which came to me in a cable from Serowe yesterday. It shows the state of affairs which exists. It says:
It is practically certain now that no full tribal kgotla with Tshekedi present will be held, as proposed by the Minister for Commonwealth Relations, Mr. Gordon-Walker, and suggested by the three British observers at their


first meeting with the Bamangwato headmen yesterday.
A flare-up occurred yesterday afternoon soon after the departure for England of the retiring High Commissioner for the Protectorates, Sir Evelyn Baring.
That is easily explained and will appear later from my reading of this.
The tribal leaders, supporters of Seretse and opponents of Tshekedi's return, heard from a newspaper correspondent that Tshekedi was planning to return to the Bamangwato Reserve this week, whereas it is clear that the present intention of Tshekedi is to return to the neighbouring Bakwena Reserve. Around the campfires in the evening, the leaders, Keaboka and Peto, held a discussion with the 350 headmen who had assembled for the earlier meeting with the three British observers. The people were obviously excited and this excitement increased as the discussion proceeded. Seretse's lawyer later told the Press that the headmen had passed a resolution criticising the High Commissioner for not telling them of Tshekedi's intention to return to the Reserve, and refusing to hold a joint kgotla with Tshekedi present. This decision was taken by the headmen despite their earlier promise to the observers that they would return to their villages and discuss their request for a joint kgotla before giving a final decision.
On behalf of the Administration, the Acting High Commissioner, Mr. H. E. Turnbull, stated that Tshekedi would return to the Reserve only after agreement had been reached, The tribal headmen broke camp last night and returned to their villages in a state of high agitation and excitement. Meanwhile Tshekedi's adherents spent a hectic weekend trying to round up their supporters between points separated by as much as 400 miles. They had only three trucks with which to do this. This rush is due to the fact that Tshekedi's senior representative, Raseholai, was told late on Friday of the plan to hold a meeting with the observers today.
One Tshekedi supporter, having heard about today's meeting late on Saturday, walked 50 miles to Palapye to be present.
Unlike the faction which opposes Tshekedi's return, Rasebolai did not have the full use of Government vehicles to arrange this rush job. His refusal to request Government support in bringing his people is believed to be due to his feeling of non-co-operation on the part of the Administration towards Tshekedi's supporters. This morning nearly 90 Tshekedi supporters assembled, but had no opportunity of holding any discussions between themselves before their meeting with the observers.
Some of these facts were placed before the observers when Rasebolai outlined the case of Tshekedi's supporters. His case was based on the following points:—

"1. The recent `commotions' in the territory had been deliberately stirred up with a view to the intimidation of the people who might otherwise declare their support for Tshekedi's return, thereby prejudicing his return;
2. Widespread victimisation was being practised against known Tshekedi suppor-

ters. Witness after witness rose to give the observers their personal experiences at the hands of the anti-Tshekedi faction, including threats to confiscate their property.
3. It was alleged that the Administration had persistently failed to deal with complaints of assault, theft and victimisation lodged with the officials. Full details were given of each case and of the alleged failure to take effective action. Some speakers went so far as to suggest that the officials favoured discriminatory action being taken against Tshekedi's supporters.
4. His supporters were in favour of the return of Seretse as chief, and of Tshekedi as a private citizen, and they were agreeable to support the proposal for a joint kgotla so that his detractors could face Tshekedi himself. Seretse's uncle, Oteng, told the observers that all Tshekedi supporters present at the meeting with the observers would be in real danger when they returned to their distant villages in view of the threats made against them. Many had already been victimized, assaulted, and had had their cattle taken away. There could be no assurance of safety for their persons after they left the meeting today, he said. I have been unable to determine whether this is an exaggeration, but it undoubtedly represents the feeling of these supporters who are present today.

The observers have been placed in an awkward position. Their present terms of reference preclude their handling questions arising from the demand—which is unanimous—for the return of Seretse. Nor can they deal with complaints against the local officials. Yet it is clearly difficult to deal with the case of Tshekedi as an isolated event unless the whole matter of the banishments and the Administration's policy are inquired into.
An increasingly tense situation has been further complicated by the ultimatum handed to the High Commissioner yesterday morning by Keaboka, leader of the anti-Tshekedi faction, demanding that all Tshekedi supporters be expelled from the Reserve before August 15. The three observers are much less sanguine today than when they arrived.
In such a state of affairs, one asks, "Who is ruling?"

Mr. James Johnson: Who said it?

Mr. Davies: It was sent by a correspondent from Serowe who is there at present. Who rules in this area? Is it Keaboka, who says, "Everybody against me must clear out"? This, after 75 years of peace, an improving standard of living, better education, and no trouble whatever! There was no trouble whatever until action was taken against these two men. Does the House realise how much this man who has been expelled has done for his country? Does the House recall the German treatment of natives in West


Africa, from whence 1,400 came and put themselves under Tshekedi's protection? There are 14,000 of those people in the area today, and they are some of the best men in Africa. That is the man who has been expelled.
Why, again, was the report which was handed to the Secretary for Commonwealth Relations never given to the House and to the people? I must read again and call the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to paragraph 10 of the Report of March, 1950:
The Report of the Enquiry was received at the end of 1949, and, together with the evidence tendered, has been the subject of the most careful study by His Majesty's Government in personal consultation with the High Commissioner, in the light of all the information available to them of African opinion in the High Commission Territories and elsewhere in Southern Africa. They have considered whether the Report should be published. As the Report and the accompanying evidence form only a part of the matters considered by His Majesty's Government, they would present an incomplete and unbalanced picture.
What were the things other than were contained in the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman was giving attention?
Moreover certain arguments are advanced "—
I take it in the Report—
and views expressed. … which are not accepted by His Majesty's Government, and with which they could not associate themselves. The danger that such parts of the Report would be quoted without its being made clear that they had not the approval of His Majesty's Government is so great that His Majesty's Government have decided that the Report cannot be published.
What were those matters that the Government was afraid of publishing? Could not they also have said, "We do not agree with that statement or this statement," and make it perfectly clear to everyone? But instead, that Report has been kept secret to this day, and a man has been banished without a trial and without a charge—a man who had won the respect of everybody, from the highest down to the people whom he protected; a man who had helped to save his own people, from drink and otherwise.
One last matter and I have finished. If this had been done by the right hon. Gentleman in any area other than this area, in any area other than that in which the law is still under that Proclamation of 1907, that out-of-date matter

which has been rectified in certain other parts of Africa, I would not have troubled this House with the case of Tshekedi Khama, nor with the case of Seretse. The action would have lain against the right hon. Gentleman in the Royal Courts of Justice. What would have happened would have been the taking out of a writ of habeas corpus directed to the right hon. Gentleman, and he would have been answerable for that before His Majesty's judges.
But now, the right hon. Gentleman having committed this wrong, having banished this man, he does not put him back, but he says, "I will wait to hear whether his people will take him back. I will shelter behind them. And I warn the House that he is already unpopular. I warn the House, and I read a telegram. If he goes back this is what will happen. The tribe will disperse." That, coming from a country which is proud of its administration of its justice, proud of the fact that it has at any rate put its hand to, although it has not yet been made the law of this land, the Charter of Human Rights. This is an offence against that Charter, and it is right that the House should deal with this matter.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We recognise that the initiative in opening this debate has been taken by the Liberal Party, and we have listened to a long and, I think, most sincere speech by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I shall confine myself to just two main causes of disquiet which are agitating our minds. The first is that my hon. and right hon. Friends are most anxious to make quite sure—and I fear we may be disappointed, but I should like to take this opportunity of finding out from the right hon. Gentleman—whether the case of Tshekedi Khama has, in fact, not already been prejudiced almost beyond repair by the procedure which he originally suggested, and to which we took objection. That is the first issue.
I shall keep my speech short, and I promise the House that I have no telegram or quotations to read. The second point on which I wish to obtain some clarification from the right hon. Gentleman is that the procedure which he has suggested, and for which he has made himself responsible. has not detracted from the constitutional duty of a Secretary of State


—and one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State—to act in a matter which involves individual liberty, and upon which he alone ought to have the right to take the final executive decision. If I confine my remarks to those two important issues it will be seen that I can be short, and yet make a contribution which is worth while.
The first of these issues—has the case of Tshekedi Khama been prejudiced—raises a subject upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman waxed eloquent in the concluding portions of his speech, and that is the time-honoured question of the liberty of the subject. I have discussed this matter with the right hon. Gentleman before now in private, and I have not yet had an opportunity of debating it with him in public. But I have already expressed my views to him in private that, on this question of principle, I certainly support—and I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends also support—the Liberal initiative in making a bid to look after, and take care of, the liberty of the subject wherever he may be, particularly if the British Parliament and the British name is involved.
In this connection I need not detain the House because I need only refer hon. Members to what I think was the moving and, if I may use the expression, noble speech of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) in our previous debate on this subject. He said all that was necessary. However difficult, however embarrassing this situation may be, I confess that I have sufficient of what I might call—in, deference to the initiators of this debate—Liberal instincts in my veins, which, I believe, are shared with my party, in daring to take a definite side on this subject, however embarrassing the situation may be to the right hon. Gentleman. There are certain matters upon which the Brtiish Parliament should take a stand, and this is one of them.
Let me apply myself to the two issues upon which I wish to get some clarification from the right hon. Gentleman. The first is: has the case of Tshekedi Khama been prejudged and prejudiced by the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested, and which he took the responsibility of bringing before this House? In my opinion, unless he can

give some fresh evidence in answer to the many detailed points already raised there can be only one answer to this question, and that is that the kgotla procedure, against which we spoke, and on the weaknesses of which we warned the Government, has not so far proved fair to the case of Tshekedi Khama.
Further, the information we are getting, by wire and otherwise, from the area itself, indicates that the enemies of Tshekedi have an unrivalled opportunity to rig the market against him in his absence. Further—and if the right hon. Gentleman can refute my statement, I shall be only too glad—I am convinced that to hold a tribal moot or kgotla, or whatever we like to call it, in the absence of the man who is to be arraigned before it, without permitting him to use his influence and, at the same time, permitting persecution to take place of his family, means that his case must be prejudged by this procedure, which we had already warned the right hon. Gentleman was not likely to be effective.
From the information we have been able to obtain—and it is always possible for the Opposition to obtain information from individuals, though not always from official sources—it is the intention of Tshekedi Khama to return to Africa very shortly. Now I want to question the right hon. Gentleman about what is likely to happen to Tshekedi when he arrives by plane. Is he to be served immediately with an exclusion order? I should like a categorical answer to that question.
If he is to be served with an exclusion order, we consider that even though, as has been stated in the long letter which the right hon. and learned Gentleman read, that exclusion order is to be raised to enable him to go into the Reserve and appear before the kgotla, yet we consider that the serving of an exclusion order would, in fact, further prejudice and prejudge the case and would make the man look guilty on his arrival on African soil. We should, therefore, like a categorical answer that it is not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to serve an exclusion order on Tshekedi Khama immediately he lands.
My second question, in relation to the personal side of this case, is in regard to the alleged status of the observers; and this leads me on to the more general con


stitutional issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his reasons why the Liberal Party were not ready to take part in sending observers from their own ranks. I can only say that I accept absolutely the reasons, which were identical with our own; except that it may have been that we felt even more strongly that it would be inappropriate to send any of our number to take part in this affair.
But that decision has been taken. It now appears from reports that we receive—and this gives the right hon. Gentleman the chance of answering me if I am wrong—that the observers are to be elevated in status to decide whether, in fact, Tshekedi can go in or not, and what the result is to be. We consider that if that be the case, the right hon. Gentleman is raising the status of the observers, who should be observers, to the status of the Secretary of State himself. We should like, therefore, an assurance from him that there is no intention of so raising the constitutional status of the observers and that they are not going to take executive or judicial decisions, especially executive decisions, which ought to be taken by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
That has enabled me in a comparatively short compass, first, to raise the question as to whether the rights of this man are being prejudiced by the procedure adopted. Our opinion is that they are. Our opinion is that this kgotla procedure was unworkable from the start and has landed the right hon. Gentleman and the area in question, and the person in question, in a most embarrassing and unfortunate position. The second issue is that the right hon. Gentleman must not put off the responsibility from his own shoulders, since he is perfectly capable of bearing it; and if there are decisions to be taken, he must take them himself and not put them off on to the observers.
Those are the questions I wish to ask, and without detaining the House any longer at this late hour I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer them. I ask him to give some assurance to the House that he has some respect for the deep feeling undoubtedly felt on these benches and on the benches from the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has spoken, that individual liberty means something to the British Parliament; that justice, above

all, and the non-prejudicing of a personal case mean more, and that he himself will stand before the House this evening and give us some satisfaction that the name of Britain stands where it did.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I shall not detain the House for long. I wish to say how grateful I am to the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for having raised this matter again and how proud I am that it should have been raised a second time in the House of Commons in so short a period when it appears to concern merely an individual and his rights and privileges. I think there is a great deal more at stake even than those important rights and privileges of the individual.
When we last had our debate in the House, my right hon. Friend announced his dramatic decision to send observers from the House to observe the kgotla which it was proposed to hold to find out the wishes of the tribe as to whether Tshekedi Khama should be allowed back or not. That was such an obvious concession towards those of us on this side of the House, and on the other side of the House, who felt deeply on this matter that I felt there was little more to be said at that time.
I did, however, and many other hon. Members did also, press my right hon. Friend to ensure that if and when this kgotla was held it should be held under conditions which would give a really fair hearing to Tshekedi Khama in an atmosphere of calm. It should be felt also that this kgotla was not summoned—perhaps prompted and instructed beforehand—by this man's enemies. It would, indeed, be a most extraordinary thing if any man could rule energetically and progressively for as long a time as Tshekedi Khama ruled over Bechuanaland Protectorate as paramount Chief, without making some enemies.
But that is very nearly what he did. It was only when he and Seretse Khama were out of the way, for reasons with which the House is familiar, that there crept out of their holes these representatives of the other faction in the dynastic feud, which had been kept quiet for 23 years largely owing to the enlightened rule of Tshekedi Khama himself. It


was only then that they crept out and began to cause trouble, and they did it by spreading lies, as the right hon. and learned Member has said, about Tshekedi's intentions with regard to the chieftainship in the future.
Tshekedi has, of course, repeatedly renounced any claim to the chieftainship, and now his rivals are saying that they want the return of Seretse. Why do they want the return of Seretse at the present time? Is not this their scheme, and is it not perfectly obvious? They are saying to themselves, "Let us take care of Tshekedi. We can show, by stirring up the necessary trouble if need be, that he is a person who is a source of disorder in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and we can leave it to the Secretary of State to take care of Seretse because he will not dare to send Seretse back owing to the repercussions which such action might have elsewhere on the Government of the Union." So, of course, they are remaining supreme in the absence of both.
If my right hon. Friend had been in the pockets of members of the rival faction, he could not have done more for them than he has at the present time. God forbid that he should ever be in such an unsavoury position and I am certain he is not. In the course of answering Questions put to him by myself and other hon. Members not many days ago, he permitted himself the remark that there had been no disorder until there was the debate in this House of Commons, thereby seeming to accept the view of the rival Sekgoma faction, that Tshekedi was a source of trouble. Of course, there is trouble now—

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Mr. Gordon-Walker indicated dissent—

Mr. Mallalieu: My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but if that was not the implication, what was it? The implication is there that it was the debate in the House and that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were stirring up trouble.
There has been disorder of late stirred-up by the Sekgoma faction. If the officers on the spot had taken in hand this matter of putting across to the tribesmen that Tshekedi was not a claimant to the chieftainship, I believe they would have succeeded, and, if they had succeeded, there would have been no disorder. The fact

is they have not succeeded in that, and I am sorry to say that I see very little evidence that they have even tried. It is a matter of singular misfortune that the man on the spot in this case is none other than that South African official, District Commissioner Germond, who was primarily responsible for that action against Tshekedi Khama in the 'thirties when there was that ill-advised adventure of the acting High Commissioner Evans, being advised theatrically to leave the Union and come into the Protectorate with his naval gun and naval detachment to humiliate Tshekedi because he had carried out what was then the legitimate decision of the kgotla to flog a "poor white" who had been interfering with black women.
I say that however impartial this man may be, and I accept my right hon. Friend's assessment of his qualities in this regard, he should not have been left in charge of this situation: so long as he is in charge of the justice on the spot, so long will justice not appear to be done. As the official on the spot, I have no doubt, he tenders his advice to the official who is higher up than himself, who, in turn, passes that advice to the next higher official, and so on up through the official hierarchy until it reaches my right hon. Friend, who is able truthfully to say to the House, as he did, that all the officials on the spot took this view or advised that particular course of action. Is not that what officials always do? Are not they so loyal to themselves in their own trade union that sometimes they forget to be just to outsiders as well?
I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will not sail away from my argument on this particular point by saying that I have attacked an official who is not here to defend himself. I have attacked no official at all. I have merely said that so long as this official is in his position justice cannot appear to be done. He may be an absolute paragon of disinterestedness, he may be a prince of objectivity, but justice will not appear to be done so long as he is there. I hope that we shall not hear from my right hon. Friend that he is sailing away on that.
It is obvious, is it not, whatever the cause, that a serious situation has arisen in Bechuanaland? Things are getting out of hand, but we do not even know


the facts. We do not know who is calling the meetings, or who has the right to call them. All we know is that the observers have been busy seeing people of the tribe. I submit to my right hon. Friend that we should know the facts, and it would be a useful thing if these observers had their terms of reference considerably enlarged so that they may take in their purview the whole state of affairs in Bechuanaland and advise the Government on the facts there and on the possible developments which may result from them.
I will not read the reports from "The Times" which have appeared yesterday and today, but from them it is obvious that even Tshekedi's opponents contemplate his return under certain circumstances: they say they will not let him return to the territory unless Seretse returns, too. Apparently, they have told Mr. Germond and Mr. Fraenkel, who is Seretse's lawyer on the spot. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether we in this House are to be dictated to by a tribe, or even more by, a faction in a tribe? I think we are entitled to an answer to that question. I fear that the observers, who seem to be admirably suited to the task for which they were selected, may have difficulty in carrying it out because of developments in the Protectorate since our debate.
I myself believe that there will be no peace in the Bamangwato unless Tshekedi and Seretse are both allowed to return. If we are to accept the view of the tribe on the question of Tshekedi's return—as I gather we are, and for that reason my right hon. Friend is arranging a kgotla specially to reach a decision on the part of the tribe—why not on Seretse's return also? After all, the tribe have given a clear decision—how come I am not prepared to say—that Seretse should return.
I believe that both these men will have to go back and that somebody should calla kgotla who is entitled to call it. It is by no means unusual under native law and custom to have a kgotla called by persons other than the chief. Rasebolai, who is in the direct line of succession, would be a perfectly good person to call it. I submit that that kgotla would be accepted by the tribe, and, at any rate, Tshekedi would be able to trust that

kgotla, which would not be reversed, summoned, rehearsed and prompted by his enemies or even by the sinister Mr. Germond behind the scenes.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Mr. Gordon-Walker rose—

Mr. Mallalieu: If my right hon. Friend asks if that is the official that I was not attacking my reply is that I am still not attacking him, but I say that his presence in that place is sinister for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Paget: is my hon. and learned Friend aware—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that when Mr. Germond was appointed, Tshekedi himself, I think, in writing, said how much he approved the appointment and that Mr. Germond was the best man for the job?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am aware of it, and it reinforces my opinion about how generous this man Tshekedi is. My proposals are that the terms of reference of the observers should be widened to enable them to take into account the affairs of the Protectorate into their purview and to advise the Secretary of State and this House how to extricate ourselves from the mess in which. I am afraid, we are in at the moment. I say further, that the return of Tshekedi and Seretse should be allowed, to give a stable basis for whatever should be decided in the future.
In the meantime, the Government must see that peace and good government are adhered to in the Protectorate, and that order is maintained. I strongly appeal to my right hon. Friend to take his courage in both hands. It is not just a question of his own reputation—though I would go a long way to save that—but it is a question of saving the country's reputation. Before lasting hurt is clone to our reputation for fair dealing and honesty in Africa he should take the steps I have ventured to press on him this evening.

11.6 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: Although I think the Leader of the Liberal Party might have made his case rather less lengthy, I am in complete agreement with him. I accept the plain, liberal argument that a man should be able to do what he likes and go where


he likes unless he has committed an ascertainable crime. Nevertheless, I say that in the case of Tshekedi I can see a case, although I do not agree with it, which can be put on the other side. It is based largely on grounds of expediency.
All of us in politics are constantly having to compromise the ideal against the hard realities of many different circumstances, and I can understand how an honest man can have looked at the evidence three or four months ago and have concluded then—and still concludes now—that the return of Tshekedi might give rise to disturbances and upset, and that the liberal merits of the case must be set aside for the sake of preserving law and order.
It seems to me that the great publicity which has been given, rightly, to the case of Tshekedi has to some extent overshadowed the case of Seretse, on which the liberal arguments seem to apply as strongly as to Tshekedi, and I do not see any argument in expediency the other way. When first Seretse was banished we were not told the reasons, but were given to understand, arising from the history of three kgotlas at which rather differing results were reached in a short period of months, that the reason Seretse was excluded was because his presence at that time would have caused disunion, breach of civil peace, disorder, and all the rest.
On the reports which are coming both publicly and privately from the Bamangwato area now there does not seem to be a shred of doubt that on one question there is unanimity among the people, and that is their desire for the return of Seretse. For my part, strongly though I agree with the case which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put forward on behalf of Tshekedi, I can see some reason that there should be a little postponement of decision in his case, provided that Seretse were sent back at once.
I cannot see, on any of the evidence, that the return of Seretse would lead to a cooling down of the feelings of many people there at the present time, or would make it possible to explain to the people of the Bamangwato Tribe the true position, if, by any chance, they have been misled about it from any source.

In a matter of weeks or, possibly, months—in an issue of this kind, two months would not be too long, I think—there could be a cooling down process, with Seretse back amongst his people again. In some such time as that, a cool decision could be taken, and the whole thing could be settled.
Now I want to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions. Has he now any doubt at all about the unanimity of these people in favour of the return of Seretse? If he has any doubt, perhaps he would tell us on what ground that doubt rests. Would he then say what he is going to do to remove his own doubt one way or the other? Would it be a good plan to ask those three observers—well chosen observers, who are on the spot—to report to him as soon as they are able whether, in their view, the people of this tribe are unanimous about the return of Seretse?
If that is not a reasonable suggestion, perhaps he would put forward another of his own. But assuming that it is a reasonable suggestion, would he answer this final question? Suppose the observers are able to report in a short time unanimously that they are convinced that the whole of the people want Seretse to go back, could he go back? if not, why not?
Or is that a question whose answer is so secret that we cannot be given it? If so, it is a secret to which all of us know the answer. Is it because of the opinion of Malan and his supporters in South Africa? If it is I really think that, in the light of the Prime Minister's speech on foreign affairs yesterday, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations ought to learn that we are living in a different century from that which, perhaps, he thinks.
New forces are arising of all kinds, and some of the forces arising in Africa, in all parts, will, in the long run, prove themselves infinitely stronger than any forces which are represented by Malan. Quite apart from Liberal principles, or any other arguments which can be adduced from morality, the sheer arguments induced by expediency would urge that we put ourselves clearly and unequivocally on the side of the rising forces and not on the side of the waning forces in the African Continent.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I rise to say only a few words in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). What we are really concerned with is the future of Africa. There is no doubt that to the continued future of the British Commonwealth of Nations the African position is absolutely essential, and this matter really arises, not because there is not now, or is not going to be, a decision by a kgotla, but because originally, for some reason or another which we have still to learn, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations did not see fit to honour the decision of the first kgotla.
If Tshekedi has committed any offence, in the eyes of the people of Bechuanaland it is that he agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is the accusation against him, that he and the Secretary of State agreed that Seretse was not the proper person possibly to be chief of the tribe. Clearly, that is now what is being held against him.
If we are to look at all this again is it not time that we expressed what we think about it? The other day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) gave us a lecture about the freedom of the individual, saying that his party could never in any circumstances tolerate the banishment of anybody. They have been sitting there for years and years listening to me telling them about the same kind of thing happening in the United Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Northern Ireland."] Exactly. For over 30 years the right hon. Gentleman's party have practised the exclusion order. For example, one of the best known trade unionists was kept from his own home, and yet they get up here and say that is just the very thing that they will not tolerate. But that is not what we are discussing tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but it is an important principle.
The danger we are in about both Seretse and Tshekedi is that we give the impression, whether rightly or wrongly, that we are really seeking in Africa the sympathy of those people who are most opposed to equality for the Africans.
I am not one of those who think, as I know many hon. Members opposite honestly do, that freedom is best defended

by its worst enemies. I do not think, for example, we get peace when we are defending it with Nazi generals or Franco Spain. I do not think that the freedom of Africa and the ordinary African can best be defended by those who deny it to them. Therefore, if we are thinking in terms of African defence—and perhaps that is what is at the back of the mind of my right hon. Friend— we should not make any suggestion of racial intolerance to anyone in order that we can be given a few troops.
I now come to the actual details of the position. What are we to do in this position? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us, when he comes to deal with the kgotla, who is to preside at it. That is an important point. It is rather like the Conservative Conference. They do not have a vote. The leader determines what everybody is thinking after the meeting is over. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) agrees with me.
Therefore, it is of some importance that they find who is the right person to be the leader. I feel that in this gathering my right hon. Friend should say who is to preside. This is a question which might, for instance, be decided or discussed by the African Advisory Committee. There exists in Bechuanaland such a committee which meets about once a year and it is an admirable body to which we could refer this vital question. Let us have an answer on that point.
There is a second dangerous point to which I would refer. My right hon. Friend will have noticed that the view is now growing that it is possible for the kgotla to decide the banishment of anybody. As I understand the news that is now coming through, it seems that some of the opponents of Tshekedi want to banish some of his supporters as well. My right hon. Friend said that sometimes harm is done by debates in the House, but great harm would be done if we did not make it clear that that is not a point which the Government, or anyone else in this House, would stand for.
What is to happen if no kgotla is summoned? May I just make one suggestion to my right hon. Friend? If no kgotla is summoned why cannot we go back to the recent suggestion which some hon. Members put forward in the


recent debate, namely, that there should be a judicial inquiry? The only reason why Tshekedi can be banished without a judicial inquiry is, that to make the position easier he resigned from his regency. The Ordinance of, I think, 1944 or 1943, provides that no chief may be banished unless there is a judicial inquiry. It is only possible to banish Tshekedi under the 1907 Proclamation because he said that he would make the position easier by resigning.
Can I suggest, finally, that if the right hon. Gentleman's conception of the kgotla does not work out he ought not to take further advantage of so generous an act by one who has, whether one agrees with his policy or not, served this country and Africa very well for a long period, and that he should be given that judicial inquiry to which he would have been entitled if he had stood to his rights and had not acted with the intention of making the position easier for this country and everyone concerned.

11.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): I should like to start, if I may, with a reference to the attack which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said he did not make on some of the officials present, particularly one whom he mentioned by name. I think that his distinction between attacking and not attacking is a subtle one. My hon. and learned Friend made an attack upon Mr. Germond, the District Commissioner, who is an able and impartial official. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), has pointed out that when Mr. Germond was appointed Tshekedi Khama went out of his way to tell the High Commissioner how glad he was about the appointment, and to say that Mr. Germond was as good a choice as could be found. It may well be, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg says, that Tshekedi Khama was generous, but also that Mr. Germond is an impartial and good official. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]
There has been a certain tendency in some quarters during this controversy to attribute disreputable motives to and to cast aspersions upon officials. There was, I thought, a deplorable example of this

during the week-end in a speech by Mr. Fothergill, President of the Liberal Party, who said, according to Press reports, that there was a sinister background to these disorders. He said that there was more than a suspicion that police and officials had not dealt with the disorders sufficiently promptly and firmly. There was a clear indication in what he said, as reported, that officials had deliberately refrained from suppressing disorder, and restoring order.
Mr. Fothergill did not cite a tittle of evidence. If what he said is correctly reported, it seems to me to contain innuendoes which are irresponsible and unprincipled. I take it that, as President of the Liberal Party he was speaking for the Liberal Party. He made these irresponsible allegations. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) will either repudiate what has been stated, or else tell us that Mr. Fothergill has been misrepresented in this report. Otherwise, we must take it that Mr. Fothergill was speaking for the party when he said that disorder had not been suppressed properly nor quickly enough.
I should like next, as there is no answer to that point, to say, in reply to questions put to me about the proposed kgotla, that I have always said—and said from the beginning of this controversy—that it was our intention to invite the tribe to hold one more kgotla to determine the tribal attitude to the return of Tshekedi as a private person. I would remind hon. Members that I have always made it clear that we would invite the tribe to do this. But, although we can invite the tribe to hold a kgotla, and bring argument to bear, it is not within our power to compel people to attend a meeting anywhere. The second thing is that I said that the exclusion order would not, in any way, act as a bar to Tshekedi's attendance.
If one is to invite a tribe to hold a kgotla, it is necessary to put the invitation to them and necessary, therefore, to have preliminary meetings. It also seems to me to be common sense that, where there are parties in sharp dispute and controversy, it is very wise to try to get everybody together and have separate meetings in the first place; to get the good will and co-operation necessary if there is to be a kgotla. In any case, there are always preliminary meetings


before the calling of great and formal kgotlas. Therefore, I think there should be preliminary meetings at which the arrangements for this kgotla must be discussed, and the invitation to the tribe could then be put to the people.
In reply to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), the observers are there as observers; they are men of distinction, but have no power to make decisions. That, of course, rests with the Government. But having sent men of this distinction, one will await their views before coming to decisions, and there is no question at all of sheltering behind them nor of giving them constitutional position. I talked with them before they left this country, and they gave me their assurances that they would use their best influences to urge upon the tribe certain lines of action for the holding of this kgotla.
First, my invitation to hold the kgotla will be put to the tribe and this, of course, will be strongly supported by our officers there; the observers have promised their full influence in pressing upon the tribe the wisdom of accepting this invitation.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: I am sorry to intervene, but is not the difficulty this? Who is to call this kgotla? In tribal law, the only person who can legally summon a kgotla is the recognised chief and he, in this case, does not exist at the moment.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I will come to that point, but there is provision for the High Commissioner to appoint any fit and proper person to call, and preside over, a kgotla. There is the difficulty of native custom, but it is to be made clear to the tribe that Tshekedi has renounced the Chieftainship. This has been made clear again and again. Also, the Government strongly desire that Tshekedi should be present both at the kgotla and at these preliminary meetings to make arrangements for the kgotla. But I repeat, while I can invite and urge people to attend meetings I have, and this House has, no power to compel people to attend meetings. Further, there should be a reasonable and customary interval between the calling and holding of the kgotla.
I have heard from the observers that there are also going on discussions

between them and the followers of Tshekedi Khama. I am sorry that Tshekedi Khama—he is perfectly entitled so to decide—was not there himself to take part in these discussions. I did suggest to him in the letter the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out that it would be wise, in his own interests, to arrive there about the same time as the observers, and I did make arrangements for him to fly there. But he chose to go later. Therefore, he himself cannot be present at the moment in the discussions with the observers. But they are having discussions with his main supporters and followers. I am glad to say that Tshekedi Khama is going out there and will be leaving, I understand, on 2nd August. We shall also suggest—and my officers and observers—

Mr. C. Davies: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman knows he is only going to the Territory where he is permitted to go.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, I know that, and I shall be coming to that point.
We shall also suggest—and my officers and the observers have agreed to support it—that it is very important that there should be an impartial person as president. It is very difficult to give an exact answer according to native law and custom as to who should preside in this particular case, because native law and custom does not provide that it is necessary for the president of a kgotla to be impartial. It is very important that he should in this case be impartial, and we shall suggest that it might well be the right solution in these circumstances for everybody to agree on some prominent person from a neighbouring tribe, who should come from outside.
Also, we are getting together a panel of knowledgeable elders in the field of native law and custom of neighbouring tribes who will be available to be consulted by the observers on any points they wish to consult them about, so that they will have some sources as well as people in the Bamangwato. Reserve whom they can consult about points of native law and custom if they so wish.
On the question of the exclusion order, to which the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and others referred, I have always said—and said from the very beginning in the first debate on this, and


have repeated—that the exclusion order will not act as a bar to Tshekedi Khama attending at the kgotla. It has been a very difficult matter on which to reach a right decision. The service of the exclusion order is, in my judgment, necessary to preserve the status quo in a situation of very great difficulty and tension. The present policy of the Government—which is well known and well established—is the policy laid down in the White Paper, that both Tshekedi Khama and Seretse Khama should be excluded.
To depart in a major way from this known, and publicly known, policy while the whole question of the holding of the kgotla and the arrangements for it are being discussed would be to run the risk of very greatly confusing the issue and bringing a very disturbing new factor into the situation, and causing misunderstanding. The reports that have been published in the Press and that have reached me from the Reserve, show that there is great danger that, if we departed in this major respect from established policy and from the status quo it would lead to very grave misunderstandings which would prejudice and make more difficult to achieve the end we have in mind, namely, that there should be a kgotla which Tshekedi Khama and his followers should attend, and would weaken the chance of the solution we want.
I have both written to Tshekedi Khama and told him that when the exclusion order is served on him he will, at the same time, be given a letter which will tell him that directly the arrangements for the kgotla have been made, the order will be waived to permit his entry during the period between then and the holding of the kgotla. I have also pointed out to him that the Administration must reserve the right to take what steps it deems right and proper to prevent any breach of the peace, but that the exclusion order shall not act in any way as a bar upon his entry into the tribe between the date of the decision to hold the kgotla and the holding of the kgotla.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden raised the question whether this was the right way of doing things, and whether it did not prejudice the whole case. I think that the answer to that is that if the issue of the

return of Tshekedi Khama is raised—it was made a question the other day; it is now an issue—it is a matter suited for settlement by a kgotla and suited for settlement only by a kgotla—

Mr. C. Davies: Why?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I am just coming to that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to continue what I have to say.
The question at issue is the right of certain people to belong to and reside in a tribe when it has been alleged that they have severed their connection with the tribe. That is the question at issue, and it is a complicated question of native law and custom, and there is a well-established procedure for discussing and settling these problems when they arise. They have arisen not only in this connection; they have arisen from time to time in the past.
People have severed, or have been alleged to have severed their connection with a tribe and then have wished to come back. The proper way, the only way by native law and custom of settling this issue when it has been raised is by proper discussion in a kgotla. It is not easy in this instance to get a kgotla, but if this issue is raised, there is no other way of settling it in accord with native law and custom.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg asked whether we would be dictated to by the tribe in these matters. Of course, we are not dictated to by the tribe, and any decision that is taken' by the kgotla in this is only evidence on which we work. But I must say to him that, equally, we cannot dictate by long-distance decrees to these people about how exactly they shall settle their own matters of native law and custom.

Mr. Butler: In that case, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he took the dramatic decision to ban Tshekedi?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Tshekedi Khama?

Mr. Butler: Yes.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I gave long reasons in my speech the other day why that was done. I can repeat them all if the right hon. Gentleman wishes. What


I was saying was that the method by which these things can be settled cannot be by long-distance decrees from us that they must not do it by a kgotla, in this way or in that way—

Mr. C. Davies: Mr. C. Davies rose—

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The method by which these things are settled is a well established and normal procedure, and if this issue is raised, as it has been, there is no proper way in accord with native law and custom to settle it other then by a kgotla.

Mr. Davies: But that is not what was said in this White Paper. May I read it to the right hon. Gentleman, so that he may know?
His Majesty's Government must, however, state categorically that the judicial inquiry unanimously advised against the recognition of Seretse … It further advised that Tshekedi should not be permitted to return to the Reserve.
On that, and that alone, the right hon. Gentleman acted—no kgotla, no anything.

Hon. Members: Long distance.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not quite taken the point I am trying to make. That judicial inquiry was on a judicial matter, the question of a disputed chieftainship. This is a quite different matter. This is the question of the right of certain people to belong to and reside in a tribe when it is alleged that they have severed their connection with it. That is the issue involved. Many people in the tribe say that Tshekedi Khama and some of his followers severed their connection with the tribe when they went to a neighbouring people and made declarations about it and so forth. When the question of their return to their original tribe is raised, as it has been in this case, there is no way but a kgotla to settle it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) asked, in effect, that the terms of reference of the observers should be extended and widened to include the whole of the problems that could be at issue. I respectfully suggest that it would be very wrong to open out all those major issues at this time.
I ask hon. and right hon. Members to remember how this particular question

arose. When we had the debate a few weeks ago there was a Motion before the House on one question: the question of Tshekedi Khama's return to the Reserve. There was no other question before the House—not of Seretse Khama's return, not of whether there should be a judicial inquiry or not. There was this one question at issue: whether Tshekedi Khama should return to the tribe.
I stated the Government case to justify our policy and I based it very largely on our views of the attitude and the probable reactions of the tribe if Tshekedi Khama were to return. That evidence of the views of the tribe was questioned in the House on many sides, and I therefore made an offer on behalf of the Government that we should invite a further kgotla, not to decide the issue—I would not shelter behind the kgotla any more than I would shelter behind the observers—but to verify, check and test the evidence, or otherwise if the evidence proves not to have been as we said it was.
Therefore, since that debate in the House, the whole of these proceedings has been on one question that had been raised: namely, the tribe's attitude to Tshekedi Khama's return as a private person, having renounced the chieftainship. It has been made clear to the tribe, to both parties, and to all peoples in the tribe, that this is the one issue to be put to the tribe. It is understood by the observers as being the matter on which they are to report the views of the tribe: this one question of the attitude of the tribe to Tshekedi Khama's return as a private person.

Sir R. Acland: My right hon. Friend is answering the case made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) for widening the terms of reference of the three observers to cover the whole dispute. My right hon. Friend couples me with that suggestion, but my point was a rather different one. I only suggested that if my right hon. Friend had any doubt himself as to the unanimity of the tribe about Seretse, he might also ask the observers not to cover the whole field, but simply to report to him on that one narrow point. Would my right hon. Friend answer that?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I do not think it would be one narrow point. It would be a very considerable enlargement.

Sir R. Acland: No. It is quite a narrow point.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: It would not "be a narrow point. It would raise a large point, and—

Sir R. Acland: It is a question of facts.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: It would be a shift from the one question on which we have been concentrating, on which the observers agree—

Sir R. Acland: That question only arises—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: —the observers have agreed that it is right and proper that they should report. It would be, I suggest, a very grave mistake to change our attitude once again. There has been a lot of change, a lot of doubt, and a lot of postponement and delay in this matter, and constant changes and delays and doubts of this sort inevitably undermine the Administration, which has been under great strain in these circumstances. It would be a very great mistake to change on this very important matter, on which the position of Parliament and of the Government has been made entirely clear to everybody concerned, including the people in the tribe.

Sir R. Acland: The possibility of asking these three observers to give their views about the tribe's opinion on Seretse only arises if my right hon. Friend has any doubts about that. Has he any doubts about it?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I can only restate the reasons I have given why I think it would be very unwise to change again our mind and extend the terms of reference that have been put to the observers.
I must remind hon. Members that in the last few weeks, as a result of all these developments, there has been a very great check to good government and constitutional progress in this tribe, and progress towards the end of direct rule. Our great objective in this whole matter is to get away from direct rule. We were

making, as I told the House, reasonably good progress towards that end. It has been rudely interrupted and set back, and I hope there will not now be any further doubts, delays, and changes in attitude and policy in this matter.
I hope that we can get this question settled one way or the other and that the tribe can be allowed to get back to a steady development towards the end of direct rule and towards constitutional progress. The observers are now on the spot. This is a new factor in the situation. The observers are three men on whom we can count for independent views and reports. They certainly will not make decisions, but their advice will be of great value. Their function is to help, and they have agreed to use the full weight of their influence to try and get wise decisions from the tribe and all parties on the procedure for holding this kgotla. Their function is to report on this one question of the attiude of the tribe regarding Tshekedi Khama's return as a private person.
I can assure the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden that I realise the deep feelings in this matter and that I share with him the liberal feelings he spoke about, which are of the greatest importance. It was only, as I explained earlier, after grave doubt and great reluctance that I and the Government came to the conclusion that this was one of the cases where the rights of one man had to give way. I hope that the House will agree that things should be left, anyhow at this very critical moment, where they are, with the observers out there and with discussions going on with the various parties to this dispute, and that we should rely on the good offices of the observers and of our officials there.

Mr. Bowen: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the position of the return of Seretse Khama? He said nothing about that.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I explained that this whole matter had arisen out of a debate about the return of Tshekedi Khama. There was a Motion before the House in precise terms. That is what this case has arisen from. We took up an attitude which has been made public to the tribe and everybody else, that we wanted an answer on this one question and I gave reasons why I am sure


it would be most unwise to change again on this point or to widen out further issues. We ought to get an answer on this one question and let the tribe get on with good progress constitutionally.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: I think my right hon. Friend based his whole argument in the first debate on the question of this man, if he returned, possibly causing trouble. Could he say what new principle of democratic socialism it is, which may be playing into the hands of the most reactionary influences in South Africa, which causes him to prevent men going back to the territories to which they belong? Is he going to apply this same principle to other men in West Africa and West Indies, such as Bustamante, Manley, Geary, Azikuwi and Nkrumah?

Mr. R. A. Butler: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer one of the major points which was raised in my speech, namely, whether the upsets which have occurred have amounted, in many cases, to disorder and whether the events which have occurred before the summoning of the kgotla have prejudged the case of Tshekedi Khama?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I do not think it is possible in a case like this for this issue to be approached by the tribe with the impartiality of judges. There has been a great deal of excitement and views have been taken. Once this issue was raised—and it was raised by the two Opposition parties—it had to be settled and there is no other way of settling it but by a kgotla. Those who raised this issue must accept the responsibility for the circumstances in which only one possible remedy can be used.

Orders of the Day — POLISH TANKERS (REQUISITIONING)

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: I now venture to turn the attention of the House to another subject in which it seems to me that the honour of the Government is also involved, a subject of comparatively minor importance in itself, yet with, as I shall seek to show, important implications. I refer to the recent seizure and requisitioning by the Government of two tankers which have become known as the Polish tankers. I do not know whether

in law they could rightly be so described. They were built in the North of England and recently completed to the order of the Polish mercantile marine. They were paid for by the Poles and were on the point of being delivered to the Poles. A week or so ago, three days before one of them was due to sail, and when the Polish captain and crew were already on board the ship, the Admiralty, acting, one gathers, under instructions, or as the agent, of the Foreign Office, sent a British naval officer with a requisitioning order on board the ship. He ordered the captain and crew to go ashore and took possession of the two tankers on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
The contracts for these two tankers were signed on 14th May, 1948. I emphasise that date particularly because it has an important bearing on what I next have to say. Early in 1949 the AngloPolish Trade Agreement was signed. Article 6 of that Agreement states:
The Government of the United Kingdom shall not prohibit the export to Poland of capital equipment produced in fulfilment of orders placed by or on behalf of the Polish Government with United Kingdom firms on or before the date of signature of the present agreement.

Sir John Mellor: Is not the Polish Government in breach of that agreement in that they have not paid the first instalment of £400,000 therein undertaken?

Mr. Driberg: If the hon. Baronet is going to help my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reply to this debate, no doubt my hon. Friend will be grateful for his assistance. I understood that these tankers had been paid for, and furthermore that the Polish Government had been extremely scrupulous and thorough in honouring other parts of the Agreement relating to the supply of goods, grains and timber all of which came under the Agreement. Unless I misunderstand the situation, I do not think there has been a breach.

Sir J. Mellor: The first instalment of £400,000 was due on 1st April this year, but I understand it has not been paid yet. Therefore, the Polish Government have not honoured the Agreement and it seems there is a breach.

Mr. Driberg: I am sure that if what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, though


my information is different, the Under-Secretary will confirm it and will be most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I cannot say fairer than that.
As I maintain and understand, this action by the Government amounts to a violation of the Anglo-Polish Trade Agreement. When I suggested this at Question time on 23rd July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not, as he might well have done, say anything on the lines of the remarks of the hon. Baronet who has just intervened: he merely said that the question whether there had been any violation of the Trade Agreement was a matter of interpretation.
I must say that I find it extremely difficult to interpret the plain words in the one sentence of Article 6 in any other way than this—that we have been guilty of the unilateral violation of an international agreement, which is the kind of thing which we object to strongly when other nations do it to us. Further, it seems not only as a matter of principle a wrong thing to have done, but very shortsighted and unwise. It is another illustration of the kind of thing referred to in the debate on the last subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), when he said that if you stick to principle it usually turns out to be the best policy in the end also, and that you are in fact serving expediency as well as principle.
Nothing can be worse for the reputation of the British Government for keeping its bargains, and therefore for the export trade we so urgently need, than this kind of thing—unilateral violation of trade agreements. As I understand it—and perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm or deny this—it is the case that we have, as it were, consumed many of the goods—eaten the bacon, used the pit props, and so on—for which these tankers were to be a kind of exchange. Putting it as mildly as possible, this seems to me an extremely foolish way to treat people with whom we are doing extremely useful business.
I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give us some indication of the reasons which lie behind this action. Later on the same day on which the Prime Minister answered these questions, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that these tankers

were requisitioned under war-time Defence Regulation because they were "required for defence purposes." It is a little difficult to imagine what precise defence purposes, in the narrow sense of the phrase at least, they can be required for. It is difficult to believe that they make a striking contribution to the vast panoply of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation now being built up. It does not seem worth creating all this ill-will and endangering our future supplies of vital food, and this aspect of our export trade, merely for two tankers.
Two suggestions have been made in various quarters to explain this action of His Majesty's Government. It has been suggested that this action is indirectly related to the Persian oil crisis. If that is so, I should have thought that, if it seemed essential to the Government that these tankers should not pass to Poland in case they should be used for conveying Persian oil, the matter could have been handled somewhat differently, and perhaps somewhat less clumsily, and that perhaps an assurance could have been sought from the Polish Government that they would not use them for that purpose. If that is the explanation, again one is driven back to the Trade Agreement of 1949, which says specifically in Article 5 (b) (i) that "the Government of the United Kingdom shall place no obstacle in the way of the supply to Poland" of substantial quantities of Middle Eastern oil.
However, it is also suggested that there is quite a different reason for this action. It may be that one or other of these explanations is the correct one; it may be that there is a bit of both in it. It is also suggested that this action has been taken under the general pressure that is going on all the time from Washington in the direction of a complete blockade of Eastern Europe and a complete suspension of all Eastern-Western trade. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), speaking in this House last Thursday—I think it was—from his recent experience as President of the Board of Trade stated most emphatically that there is constant pressure from the Americans in the direction of a total blockade between East and West.

Mr. Pannell: Would my hon. Friend permit me? He mentioned


our right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). Our right hon. Friend, of course, when he was President of the Board of Trade, with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, led the case here on the breaking of this very Agreement by the banning of the export of machine tools to Poland and Russia. It does seem to me that my hon. Friend is in a weak position, because the lathes that had to be stopped from export, which were of universal use, could be used for war purposes, and surely tankers must be able to be so used. I feel that my hon. Friend's reference to my right hon. Friend's statement is a trifle unfortunate for his case.

Mr. Driberg: I do not think it is unfortunate at all. I referred specifically to my right hon. Friend's testimony as to the general pressure that is going on all the time from Washington. It has been necessary, and it has been thought desirable by the Government, at certain points to give way to that pressure; and at other points, indeed, to take the initiative and so say, "We will not supply actual war materials"—for instance, to the Chinese who are fighting our troops in Korea. But where are we going to draw the line? Oil, after all, is not only a war-time essential. It is also an essential raw material for a vast amount of peace-time industry. Where are we going to draw the line?

Mr. Nabarro: Surely, Poland is self-sufficient in oil supplies? Poland draws all her unrefined oil from the fields in the south of the country or from Russia. Surely, the tankers would be used by Poland for the purpose of earning foreign currency.

Mr. Driberg: If she buys them from us, as she has the right to buy them from us under the Agreement, she can put them to any use she chooses. She is a sovereign State, just as we are. 1 would also remind the hon. Gentleman that he was asking some very eloquent supplementary questions today— with which I heartily agreed—about the supplies of softwood, and I think other materials also, coming into this country; and the tenor, at any rate, the apparent purport of his questions was to urge the Ministers concerned to get in as much as possible from Eastern Europe as well as from other sources.
We cannot have it both ways. If we are going to say all the time that we are going to cut down on everything that Poland, Russia, and other Eastern European countries may want from us, we cannot expect to get everything we want from them. Therefore, hon. Members who advocate this kind of constant cutting down at the behest of the Americans, as I believe it very largely is, will also have to explain it to the country if there is a steady diminution in the quantities of coarse grains and timber and other desirable imports available.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to intervene again? If he will read carefully the Questions I put to the Lord Privy Seal today, he will find that they made specific reference to Canadian and Russian timber contracts. They made no reference whatever to contracts with Poland.

Mr. Driberg: I do not think that that intervention was quite up to the standard of smartness that we have come to expect from the hon. Gentleman. I referred to Eastern Europe in general. Precisely the same arguments apply to Poland as to Russia. They are both part of the Soviet sphere of influence, the Soviet bloc, and the pressure from America is equally insistent against sending goods to either. I do not really think, therefore, that that interruption was worth very much.
That brings me to the main point that I want to make in this connection, and that is to refer to the very powerful and serious first leading article in yesterday's "Times" on the Battle Bill. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House have read it, because this Bill, which is being introduced into Congress by Representative Battle and looks as if it is going to become law very soon, is commented on by "The Times" in these terms:
The export policy of countries which must trade to live will have to he brought into line with that of a country which is far less dependent on overseas trade. Britain, for example, will have to forgo the coarse grains and timber which she gets from Russia unless she can persuade the Soviet to take in exchange commodities which meet the American definition of harmlessness.
We all know that the definition of harmlessness under previous arrangements and still more under the Battle Bill and its schedules, will be extraordinarily difficult


for us to meet. Again "The Times" comments:
Every Government which is now receiving aid from the United States will have to decide in the next few weeks whether such a system is workable.
I hope very much that our Government will tell our friends in Washington quite bluntly that such a system as that outlined in the Battle Bill will not be workable in this island, which has to live largely on its exports. Even the Mexican Government has stood up to Washington on this, and has told them they will not comply.
I hope the visit to America in September of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be as momentous and as valuable in its way as was that of the Prime Minister last December. I hope he will tell our American friends quite bluntly that we cannot and will not "take" the kind of arrangements that are proposed under the Battle Bill, and I hope, as a token of that resolute resistance—in so far as this particular action which I am raising tonight has been prompted by American pressure—that the Poles will be told that the requisitioning of these tankers is only temporary and that they will be returned to the Polish mercantile marine to whom, in my opinion, they morally belong.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will give us some explanation of the reasons which have prompted His Majesty's Government to interfere in the completion of the contract between the companies building these tankers and the Polish Government. It is regrettable for me, a supporter of the Government, to find myself in full agreement with the comment of the "Economist" upon this matter when it said that it would indeed be hyprocrisy to pretend that this action was not a breach of contract.
One has merely to look at the terms of Article 6 of the Agreement between Britain and Poland to realise that clearly it is a breach of contract. It is one which seems also to me to be accompanied by aggravating features. First of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has pointed out, it is not the

first time that we have broken the AngloPolish Trade Agreement. I found myself a year ago in the unhappy position of having to address some stern words about this matter.
It seems to me that this recent repudiation of ours runs contrary to the whole spirit of the Anglo-Polish Trade Agreements as expressed in the preamble to the Agreement of January, 1949. It says that the two Governments concerned were "prompted by a sincere desire to ensure the development of Anglo-Polish trade to their mutual advantage, and attach particular importance to the development of Anglo-Polish trade on a long-term basis and to a settlement of the financial questions outstanding between the two countries."
Actions of the kind which the Government indulged in about a fortnight ago will not develop Anglo-Polish trade; they will kill it. That cannot be our desire. Whatever profit this repudiation of a contract brings to someone—and I find it hard to know who does profit by it—it will not profit the people of Britain or of Poland, who not so long ago suffered so much in common. What I find particularly offensive about this breach of contract is the humiliating manner in which it has been carried out. This contract was placed in 1948. So far had the work on it advanced that there was a ceremonial launching of the ships. A Polish crew was actually in possession of one of the boats, and the captain was on the ship. No notice had been given of intention to break the contract. There had been no kind of warning.
Will my hon. Friend tell us what happened in mid-July to cause this change of course? What were the new factors which arose. which did not exist in January, and which did not exist earlier last year? Why is it that the Poles have been treated in this grossly humiliating way at this last moment? This is not the way in which this country has built up its trade, and built up the reputation that an Englishman's word is as good as his bond. This is not the way things have been done in the past, and they must not be done in this way in the future if we are to survive as a trading nation.
We are one of the countries which must trade to live. At the moment our foreign trade position is serious. I should like


very much to hear the views of the President of the Board of Trade about this. They would be interesting. We know that in the first six months of this year the cost of our imports exceeded the value of our exports by more than £500 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon has referred to the Battle Bill which is now before the American House of Representatives. The prospect held out for us in that Bill, as "The Times" so excellently pointed out yesterday, is a prospect of continuing and aggravating economic difficulty.
I should have thought that by now the traditional pattern of European trade, the granaries of the East providing food for the West in return for finished goods, was a familiar one which was of advantage to Europe as a whole. That trade is mutually beneficial. It is not harmful to anyone. I find myself most unhappy about this matter because, in spite of an observation of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), upon which I would welcome the observations of my hon. Friend, so far as I know Poland has adhered honourably and strictly to the terms of the agreement.
My understanding is that the matter of compensation is still the subject of negotiation. If that is wrong, let the House be told of the error and of the facts as soon as possible. This trade treaty with Poland has brought us real advantages. We have been supplied with a large quantity of foodstuffs. Amounts which it is contemplated that Poland is to supply are, I believe, 150,000 tons of bacon, 1,200 million eggs, and 260,000 tons of other food. Then there are large supplies of timber; over £3 million worth in 1950. When we think of this in terms of strategy, what is the comparative strategic value of £3 million worth of timber and two oil tankers? Large supplies of foodstuffs come to us. Again what is the strategic value of those, compared with machine tools? It seems to me that there is grave danger in these days of our tending to lose our sense of proportion about these exchanges.
The evidence available to me is that the Poles have kept to their word and have even increased the quota of bacon supplies they were liable to render under the terms of the Agreement. Why have we done this discreditable thing? What

is the explanation? I can find no precedent in the whole of our history for the requisitioning of civilian ships of this kind under contract to another country in time of peace. If there is a precedent, where is it?

Mr. Nabarro: There was a precedent in 1914 when, on the outbreak of war, we requisitioned two ships then under construction for Chile.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am quite familiar with that; but those ships happen to have been men-of-war—battleships—and furthermore, there was a war going on.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member did not know there was a war on.

Mr. Nabarro: We were not at war with Chile.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: If the hon. Gentleman can control his verbosity for a moment, I would just say that the inability to distinguish between two men-of-war and two tankers, and not being able to distinguish between 1914 and 1951, is a mental aberration I will not try to follow.
There is a final point I wish to make. We have to think ahead in this House of our responsibilities for the future. There may be a time when our shipyards want orders. There have been moments since 1945 when, representing, as I do, an area where there is shipbuilding of some importance, I have had to approach the Minister concerned about unemployment in the shipyards. Let us not forget that, once these traditional markets of ours have gone, once the momentum and pattern of trade is broken, it will take a good deal to re-establish our position.
Even if the "cold war" leads us, as apparently it does, to utter cynicism in our treatment of undertakings given to other countries—a cynicism which confronts us with the grave danger of being reminded that our protestations at such conduct in others are a little hollow—there is a further consideration quite apart from the moral and legal aspects. We should consider the over-all strategic aspect of the "cold war." For we can arm to the teeth, but if we are dying of economic rottenness through the collapse of our trade, we shall lose the battle before a shot is fired.

12.19

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): The facts which have just been given to the House at this late hour are correct in so far as the placing of the contracts in 1948 for these tankers is concerned and as to the manner in which the vessels were requisitioned. But those are the only accuracies in the statements which have just been made.
Our justification for the requisitioning of these tankers is one which can be upheld because there has been no violation of the Anglo-Polish Agreement. We do not consider that there has been a violation because there is nothing in Article 6, which has been quoted tonight, which could have been intended to override the sovereign right of any country to requisition for defence purposes.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Persia.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend suggests that Persia is a comparable case. The difference between the action which has been taken by us as regards Poland and the action which has been taken by Persia as regards this country is that, in the case of Persia, the motives are entirely different. In the case of Persia there are political and economic reasons for the action which they have taken.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: What are the reasons?

Mr. Davies: Furthermore, the difference is that the Persians formally abrogated their right to alter the terms of the contract which they had entered into with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. They abrogated their right to alter that contract by legislation, and consequently they were not in a position to act in the way in which they have acted. Their motives, as I say, were political and economic. In our case our motive has been that of defence.

Mr. Crossman: Is my hon. Friend really arguing that when defence requirements come up it is legitimate to break treaties when ordered to by other nations, but that when looking after one's political and economic interests one is not entitled to break treaties? I had always thought the principle was that one should not break treaties, whatever the temptation to do so was.

Mr. Davies: In the first place, there has been no order given' by anyone to break a treaty. In the second place, there has been no breaking of a treaty. As I pointed out, this country has not under this Agreement abrogated its right to act for defence purposes, to use its sovereign right to act for defence purposes, that is, in this case to requisition the tankers.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there is no saving clause in this treaty with regard to defence requirements at all? It is quite unconditioned and unconditional.

Mr. Davies: There is no reason whatsoever why there should be a saving clause as regards this matter. It is generally understood that there does not have to be written into any agreement a sovereign right to take action for defence purposes. It is not necessary to put in a saving clause.

Mr. Crossman: Will my hon. Friend allow me to get it quite clear?

Mr. Davies: Excuse me. I should like to get on with my speech.

Mr. Crossman: I only want to get it clear.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) said that we had eaten the bacon and had made use of the pit-props, but that we had denied the tankers to the Poles. That is a great over-simplification of this matter. Exports under this Agreement must be viewed against the background of the large and comprehensive Agreement which includes financial provisions, and which incidentally has been repeatedly broken by the Poles. The Poles have not scrupulously carried out this Agreement, as was suggested by my hon. Friend. In the first place, the amount of timber which was foreseen when this Agreement was drawn up, and which is listed in its annexes, has not been delivered. Therefore, the pit-props to which he referred have not been received in total, and there is at present a notable shortfall in their delivery; and, as far as we can see, they cannot possibly fulfil their quota this year; they are so far behind.

Mr. S. O. Davies: How much?

Mr. Ernest Davies: It is not only on the question of timber that they have fallen down. There have been two definite financial defaults. In the first place, under Article 17 of the Agreement a sum of £400,000 should have been paid over on 31st March of this year. The Poles defaulted on that payment. We made representations to the Poles and they have not given us any satisfaction in answer thereto. They had an absolute obligation under the Agreement that that net sum would be payable, and they have given no undertaking to pay in reply to our representations.
Secondly, as regards default, on 30th June under Article 17 there was a sum owing to us which is worked out according to that Article at 3¾ per cent. of the sterling proceeds based on certain receipts from sales. That sum, in our calculation, would have amounted to £244,000. Not a penny of that has been paid over by the Poles. So the total default is in the neighbourhood of £650,000. That is the way in which this Agreement has been scrupulously honoured, according to my hon. Friend.
The action which has been taken by us is not in retaliation for this default. I have referred to it to show that the violation has taken place on the Polish side. I further put out to my hon. Friend that Poland is not doing us a favour in selling to us bacon, pitprops, and the other items referred to which come under this Agreement. Poland happens to be short of sterling and needs it. Her sale of goods to us is very useful to her. With the sterling which she obtains she has heretofore been able to buy freely in the sterling area raw materials of which she is in considerable need. She has bought very large quantities of raw materials. I might mention wood as one of these.
My hon. Friend suggested that there must be one of two reasons why we were taking this action: either it was a question of Persian oil or of hindering East-West trade. I have touched on the matter of Persian oil already. But my hon. Friend referred also to Article 5 (1, b) in which it is suggested that no obstacle should be put in the way of the supply to Poland of Middle East oil. As far as I am aware, no obstacles have heretofore been put by His Majesty's

Government in the way of Poland obtaining that oil. She has obtained that oil up to the present time and these two tankers were not in service. So she was obtaining it, presumably, without these two tankers, and to withhold them from her now is no reason for assuming that, as a consequence, she will not be able to obtain that oil. I do not think that Article 5 (1, b), which my hon. Friend quoted, is relevant in this case.
With regard to denying these tankers to the Poles with the intention of hindering East-West trade, I can deny absolutely that there has been any pressure on us to deny these tankers to Poland with a view to hindering East-West trade. But it is a fact, of course, that on all defence matters there is close consultation between the N.A.T.O. Powers. We keep in the closest touch with all our Allies and, as we are organising for joint defence, we cannot take any action which would in our view weaken our defence as a whole. It is a fact that the Admiralty concerned that these tankers were required, and one of them is already been used for defence purposes.
Both of my hon. Friends referred to the Battle Bill which is now before Congress, but this Bill is not yet law and I think it would be indiscreet of me to comment upon its terms at this stage. If the Bill goes through, then it will be time enough to consider it.
Finally, on the question of East-West trade, His Majesty's Government view, and continue to view, East-West trade as being to the mutual advantage of those engaged in it, and we hope that it will continue to the maximum extent possible. But we cannot allow East-West trade to be carried on to the point where it endangers our security. It is our security—our defence considerations—which must be the over-riding factor. But we do not intend that this action, which, as I said. is governed by defence, should interfere with the trade which is being carried on between the West and the East. We consider that it can continue to our mutual benefit.
There is a very wide range of products which can be exported from this country to Poland and which Poland can export to us, and we hope that Poland will continue to sell to us what we require and


purchase from us, as she is doing, and has been doing, those goods which she requires. The fact that these two tankers have been requisitioned for the purposes which I have given is not, in our view, a matter which should prevent the continuation of that trade.

[NOTE: For further speeches on this subject see cols. 3050–6.]

Orders of the Day — JAPAN (DRAFT PEACE TREATY)

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: One of the fundamental democratic rights which the people of this country have secured is that our legitimate grievances should be remedied or reflected in the House before we support Supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) and I have a grievance with regard to what may be the effects of the draft Japanese Peace Treaty, and before that is finally drawn up we want to place on record our views about the Treaty.
Anyone who knows anything about Labour's real policy knows that for 30 years the Labour movement, at conference after conference, has raised this issue. If there is anyone who has any doubts about that, all he need do is to read the "Labour Magazine" of 1922, the "Daily Herald," when it was a real Labour paper in 1932, the Trades Union Congress Report of 1950, and finally, the very fine document, which can be obtained in the Vote Office—it is surprising how very few seem to have seen it—published in 1948 by the Board of Trade on the future development of the Japanese economy.

Sir Herbert Williams: In view of all this, why did the Labour Party oppose the Silk Duties in 1925, which were designed largely to deal with Japanese competition?

Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member, who, I think, was in the House at that time—I was not—and probably is familiar with that, will give us the benefit of his advice on that matter. What we are concerned about now is the future effects of the draft Peace Treaty if it is allowed to be signed in the way that is proposed.
When I was preparing a few notes on this question, I went to my locker and was surprised to find the evidence, which I now have, which shows where the world is going because of the military domination of the world by the American military staff. I am quoting from the "Manchester Guardian," which, judging by its recent leading articles, seems to have forgotten its own reports. A report from Washington of 30th March contains the following:
Mr. Dulles believes strongly that Japan must be allowed to rebuild her economic strength with the least restraint or interference from outside.
It goes on to point out the danger of the rebuilding of the shipbuilding activities of Japan.
It then deals with the question my hon. Friend raised last week, when he spoke on behalf of Lancashire. It states:
… In the State Department there is a feeling of surprise at the readiness with which the main principles of a Japanese peace settlement have been accepted by other countries. …
I would ask if that applies to our own country because this is one of our grievances.
For months and months in America, this matter has been discussed publicly, privately, in the Senate, and in separate committees. Yet this House has not devoted even a day to considering this very serious Treaty, with its inevitable effects upon our industrial position. As the result of reading an American document, I find that it is proposed they should supply Japan with cotton, oil, iron-ore, and coking coal for a considerable time. No wonder the people of our industrial areas are uneasy about this proposed Treaty.
Even the Japanese themselves are opposed to the re-armament of Japan. The Chairman of the Japanese Social Democratic Party, in a statement published in the "Manchester Guardian," points out the dangers of rearming Japan. He states that the Japanese people are heartily sick of war and do not want re-armament. We would have been lacking in our duty tonight, those of us who speak on behalf of the pottery, textile and silk industries, if we did not reflect the growing uneasiness about the proposed United States industrial colonisation by financial penetration of Japan.
In my view, the Government should seriously consider this before they put their signature to the proposed Peace Treaty in September. The Government should insist on safeguards or refuse to be a party to this proposed Treaty. Japan was, before the war, and still is, a terrible menace to the standards which we have built up in our country. I find, according to an American publication published by the State Department of Commerce, that the industrial production of Japan is going up month by month, and that it will not be a very long before Japan reaches her pre-war output in many respects. Japan's production of electric power—and people in our own country should take note of this—as the result of harnessing increased supplies from hydro-electrification, has already been enormously increased over her pre-war output; and electric power is the basis of modern industrial activity.
Those of us who represented Stoke-on-Trent in Parliament before the war are uneasy about this proposed Treaty. Some may think that this is not serious, but, as sure as I am standing here, they will realise it is serious if they live another five years. Ninety per cent. of the British pottery output is produced in the city which my hon. Friends and I have the honour to represent, and we mean to represent it, no matter what other people may be thinking.
The finest pottery in the world is produced in the city and area we have the honour to represent. Unfortunately, due to the neglect of the past, our own people are not seeing that pottery. Some people, many of them in high places, are now living on the hard work of the engineering industry, the pottery industry and the cotton industry. Were it not for the ever-increasing output of these three industries our economic position, serious as it is, would be far more serious.

Mr. Boothby: Who is stopping the British people from having a look at these articles? The Government.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Gentleman has far too great an understanding to make an interjection like that. [An HON. MEMBER: "He knows more about herrings."] No, I would not insult him like that. I have too much regard for the

books he has written and which can be found on the shelves of the Library. One has only to read his books to find an indictment of his political philosophy and of the failure of past Conservative Governments.
Ninety per cent. of the raw materials for the industry for which we are pleading is obtained in this country. The industry is one of our best economic propositions. It is our best dollar earner, and because of that we are raising the matter tonight. In 1939, 300 factories employed 60,000 people in our area. Since the war, £6 million has been spent modernising porcelain factories in North Staffordshire. The world will take all the porcelain we can manufacture, and this is further evidence for the case we are raising now. We do not mind fair competition, provided it is on conditions that will compare with our own. What we are concerned about is the unfair competition which we were subjected to before the war.
Competition in the pottery industry came from the Japanese, who could make little inroads into the home market, except through chain stores, but who made enormous inroads into the Commonwealth. In Canada, 50 per cent. of the imports of pottery were Japanese, in Australia it was 70 per cent., and in South Africa 40 per cent. By 1940, the Japanese claimed to be the cheapest producer of domestic pottery in the world. The Americans bought 500,000 dollars worth of pottery from Germany and 3,111,000 dollars worth from Japan. One will readily see why we are asking for action to prevent this occurring again.
One of my hon. Friends raised this question recently and produced specimens of pottery, produced by the Japanese, which copied our ideas and designs. In five years' time, if this is allowed to continue, it will be too late to prevent our export industry from being affected. Now is the time to safeguard it. This country has spilled its blood on two occasions to safeguard democracy and to deal with military aggression, and the Government should now come to our aid to deal with potential economic aggression. Unless this Peace Treaty is radically changed, as sure as I am standing here we shall be faced with this economic aggression again in another five years.
Many of my hon. Friends, for whom I have a great respect, say, "We agree with you, but it is up to the Japanese workers to organise themselves in their trade unions." I support that, but, unfortunately, the Americans are preventing the Japanese workers from organising like we have done. If any hon. Member has any doubt about that he need only refer to the 1940 T.U.C. report, in which Mr. Terence Thornton, one of the most respected men in Lancashire, a trade unions official who is always on the workers' side, who therefore retains the respect of the men and women he represents, and who was one of a delegation which went to investigate conditions in Japan, has written a terrible indictment of conditions there and of big industrialists from America preventing the Japanese organising as we have done.
We ask that the representatives of the Government who go to Washington should point out that these matters have been raised in the House of Commons. We ask that the Treaty should be held up for a short time until the industrial representatives of all sections of the pottery industry, and of the cotton and silk industries, get a fair wages and conditions clause written into the Peace Treaty to safeguard our standards as far as possible.

12.47 a.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has put his case so well that I need not detain the House for very long. I remember the day before Sir Stafford Cripps left us, when, speaking with me on this matter, he said he was sure that the pottery industry would have to take great care in looking into the future, for it was more than likely that the severest competition would be brought to bear by the Japanese. All of us who knew him will agree with me when I say that I at once took that to heart and realised that we would indeed have to take care.
When we note that in 1946 and the first four months of 1947 Japanese exports, nearly all of pottery, were valued at seven million dollars, and when we recognise that Japanese exports of pottery compete at prices approximately one quarter of ours or even less, we can see that the volume of pottery being exported by Japan begins to approach our own in

volume, and last year the value of our own export was £12,500,000. We have suffered from unfair practices and what we think is unfair competition. Everyone knows who has to come into contact with Japanese competition that there has been unfair imitation of our patterns and designs and trade stamps.
We still get complaints from manufacturers that our classical types of pottery are exactly copied and sold as products of ours. We may get some redress from that in the future, but the unfair competition we fear is a combination of American capital applied to the cheap labour of nearly 80 million people. This is something which can be very frightening and should be looked upon seriously.
We recognise that the Japanese people must live. They have been shorn of their empire. It is doubtful if their islands can feed them, without the import of food. We wish them well. Their craftsmen are not as good as the Chinese or as our own people in North Staffordshire, but we do not want to see their standard of life pushed down beyond subsistence level. On the contrary, we are saying that steps should be taken to safeguard their standard of living and that it should be brought up to a state comparable with our own, so that competition may be fair.
We would ask our American friends and allies to forget for a moment some of their own concepts of what is good business, and to think in terms of an alliance, rather than in those of strict business. It is obviously very tempting to have 80 million people to comply with everything one wants, and to do everything one asks them for little in return, with a threat always over their heads, but alliances are brittle things when unfair trading practices have to be experienced by other Powers.
I do not think I need say much more than that, except to endorse what my hon. Friend has said already. There is the fear that these 80 million people may be turned by a great, wealthy imperial Power like the United States into a colony, not only for the intimidation of Japan's neighbours, but possibly for the intimidation economically of the United States' allies. That is a dreadful thing to contemplate, and it is not right, and it is not going to help relations between ourselves and America.
Lastly, we, who may be accused of being parochial in bringing up this subject at this late hour, are, in fact, speaking not only for North Staffordshire but for Britain at large.

12.53 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have made inquiries and I find that, so far as I can trace, no notice was given by either of my hon. Friends to the Foreign Secretary that this matter was to be raised tonight. Had notice been given I should have arranged for a spokesman of the Foreign Office to be here and, after listening to the debate, to make a reply to the various points raised by my hon. Friends. However, I will undertake that the views that they have expressed shall be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend. I know that he takes the very keenest interest in the issues that they have raised.
We have debated a variety of topics on this Bill, and I would hope that now the House would feel that it could give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope it may be agreed that that course may be followed.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: We are much obliged to my right hon. Friend for the promise he has given. We were not quite sure whether it would be convenient to raise this matter tonight, or we should have given notice of it. When we speak on this subject we are concerned not only with the pottery trade. We recognise the difficulties in which the Government are in in having to go to San Francisco and, with other countries, to deal with this problem of signing the Treaty.
The position as we see it is this, that America, unwilling to develop trade between Japan and China, unwilling to encourage capital goods development in Japan, will make it possible for the Japanese to develop consumer goods in textiles and potteries to constitute unfair competition with our own industries. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for pointing out that there is no desire to clamp down on that great people of 80 millions. That is not a policy of Socialism. They should have their chance. We know from past experience what the Japanese

will do. We noted the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade recently, that the most-favoured-nation clause was not to be extended to Japan, that if there were any evidence of their not honouring the usual codes of production and trade agreements not only should they be hindered in some way by tariffs but that their goods should be proscribed from all civilised countries.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the promise he gave that what is said in this debate will be noted—

Mr. Ede: I went further than that. I promised that the views expressed would be conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that assurance, but I believe that some of us should take this opportunity, if only for one or two moments, to re-emphasise the effect of the possible repercussions of the economic implications of this Treaty. In my constituency of Leek we suffered, in the past, in the silk and rayon industries, because of Japanese competition, and my hon. Friends from shipbuilding constituencies know how they suffered, too, from that competition.
For the British Government to say, "Yes" to the United States without detailed economic analysis of this Treaty might be fatal to the European economy. We shall never solve this economic problem unless we are prepared to open up the Chinese market to the Japanese. No less than 45 per cent. of the exports from Japan went to China before the war, and no amount of moving about in swivel chairs and no number of graphs with statistics will solve the human problem of the movement of goods from an advancing Japan to a China that needs these textile goods.
If the British Government agrees to the maintenance of this embargo on the movement of goods into China this problem will not be solved. It will not be solved by speeches in the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am only re-emphasising that many make pious speeches, but do not do very much else in this matter. In a world in


which the Atlantic Powers are very powerful something should be done to maintain our economic position.
One thing we must do is to point out to the United States that we can destroy the possibilities of a Colombo Plan or prevent the upliftment of the Asian people if the Chinese market is not open to the flood of goods which will ultimately come from Japan. Despite the effulgent leading articles that may be written about the possibilities of this Peace Treaty, Australia is the toolshop of Asia and she wants to move towards further development. We are pushing Japanese trade right down into the south of the Pacific and into Western and Eastern Africa.
I therefore sincerely hope that when Britain goes to the talks in San Francisco she will make her voice heard and will re-emphasise the need of the textile, cotton and shipbuilding industries in Britian. There are times when we have to tell our friends that we cannot concede every economic argument that they may bring up for the purpose of building up a world strategy to contain Communism. That is not the way to contain Communism in Asia; it will expand it.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Mikardo: One is always hesitant about detaining the House at this hour of the morning, when there is mass hostility by the overwhelming proportion of those who are present in the Chamber to any speaker. Even more potent is the unheard mass hostility of Members who are in the building but not in the Chamber, and who are waiting for the ticker tape to announce that the House has adjourned.
It seems to me that a House of Commons which can stay up nearly all of one night debating what appeared to me to be somewhat trivial matters affecting the personal position of one or two of its Members, has a duty to stay up for another half an hour or so to consider a fundamental matter gravely affecting not only two or three of the major industries of this country, because that is the only plane upon which the matter has been discussed up to now—its effect on the pottery and textile industries—but the peace of the world. However much we think of ourselves, we

ought to be prepared to give half as much time to considering the peace of the world. That being so, my apology for detaining the House is a little abated by these considerations.
It might seem, on the face of it, to be a far cry from a debate on a couple of tankers for Poland and the Japanese Peace Treaty; but, in fact, they are the same subject. They are facets of the same topic: of the question whether Britain, the greatest trading nation of the world, is to be allowed to go on making its trading arrangements with other countries solely on the basis of trading considerations, or whether she is to have her trade rubbed out by strategic considerations dictated purely by another nation.
That is the real question which lies before us, and I cannot understand why this justly proud House of Commons does not feel more affected by this than it appears to be': by the fact that there are our Allies, the United States of America, busy developing an economic colony in Japan along lines which she knows are detrimental to our own interests, and not caring twopence about that. Let us have the facts.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs says that we are being induced by consultation to cut off our trade with Eastern Europe, upon which we depend for timber for our pits, timber for our housing, for the coarse grains for our feeding-stuffs for our poultry industry. I do not understand how it is that we can take it so calmly that this, the greatest trading nation in the world, can now be told, "You muck up your own trade while we"—one of this nation's Allies—"develop our own economic dependence on Japan along our own way, irrespective of its effect upon the British textile and pottery industries."
With the greatest respect, I must say that I take with a little scepticism the view of the Under-Secretary that in this matter of trade with Eastern Europe there is no American influence brought to bear, and no connection between it and the development of American-Japanese trade. He says that we are under no pressure from America, and that, of course, we consult with all the other nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
If it is not America which has used its influence in respect of trade with Eastern Europe, which of the other North Atlantic Powers is it? Have we stopped delivery of these tankers to Poland on the representations of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg? I do not believe that. I am not persuaded to believe it by anything which the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has said.
My hon. Friend from the potteries has spoken of this Japanese Treaty purely from its relation to effects on the industry of that part of Britain. That is serious enough, and I think that the case was under-stated; the very valid case which exists in this regard. Yet we are appealed to by the Leader of the House to shut up and behave like good little boys by all going home. Is it not realised that this Treaty will be signed after we have gone away; after the House has risen for the recess, so that, when we come back, we shall be presented with a fait accompli and the matter cannot then be discussed?
There was great pressure from both sides of the House for us to be allowed one day—just one day—to debate this matter; and that would have meant, after the Front Benches had blown their heads off, that we should have had about four hours in which to consider this most important Treaty. We were refused that day, and told, at the same time, that the matter could be included in the debate on foreign affairs last Wednesday. But it was then virtually not discussed at all. I suggest that, having passed the stage where the House can decide treaties, we have now reached the stage where the House cannot even discuss them. We are told, in these circumstances that we should go home to bed.
This just will not do. It is not only the effects of this on the pottery industry, or the textile industry, but the effects of this on the peace of the world. The encouragement by the Americans of the industrial build-up of Japan is of a piece with their discouragement of trade between Eastern and Western Europe; and, I do wish that the Government would make up their mind what they want to do. If they go sitting on the fence, their posterior will be permanently scarred with the marks of the fence. Do we want to encourage trade with the East, or is it

putting strategic considerations first and saying that the "cold war" is becoming a "hot war" and, therefore, we shall supply nothing to the Eastern Europeans and ask for nothing from them?
If the Government take that view, I can understand it, although I might not agree with it. But the Government are wobbling about, entering into trade treaties with Eastern Europe and then honouring them only to the extent that it pleases Washington for us to do. That, to me, seems to be getting the worst of both worlds, and I am staggered when right hon. and hon. Members opposite talk of raising the housing target to 300,000 houses a year—which would mean another 130,000 or 140,000 standards of timber—while asking us to cut off trade with Eastern Europe, which is the only place from which we could get those extra 130,000 or 140,000 standards.
There is the inconsequential, verbose, and parrot-like hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who pleads that we want more eggs and feedingstuffs, and more coarse grains, while advocating that we cut off all trade with Eastern Europe. Where then, should we get the grain? Then there is his hon. Friend, the still more amusing, if more inconsequential hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) who says, when told that there is a drop in feedingstuffs for farmers, that it is "thoroughly unsatisfactory." They come along here and support the Government in cutting off trade with countries from whom we get those feedings tuffs.

Mr. Nabarro: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument about timber very closely, but I am sure he would not wish to mislead the House. Would he—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman addressing the House?

Mr. Nabarro: I was intervening, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has intervened a very great many times during the evening.

Mr. Nabarro: As I understood it, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman gave way to me. I was saying that the hon. Gentleman should put this in its correct perspec-


tive. The amount of softwood we get from Russia and Poland today is approximately 18 per cent. of our total exports.

Mr. Fernyhough: Quite a lot.

Mr. Nabarro: It is a large amount. But we are not by any means wholly reliant upon it, and the principal source for increasing imports would be from Scandinavia.

Mr. Mikardo: Sir, I forgive the hon. Gentleman even if you do not. I am sure he is quite wrong in that intervention. The fact is that we are not able—and we have tried for a long time—to get any large increase in our supplies of softwoods from Scandinavia. I think it is generally agreed, and is not in dispute, that anything in the nature of the amount of softwoods required to get even one-third of the extra houses that emanate from the flights of fancy of Conservative Party annual conferences could be got only from the countries of Eastern Europe. The hon. Gentleman, like the Government, really cannot eat his coarse grains and have them, and he has got to make up his mind one way or the other.
Quite apart from these questions of trade there is this point that I want to make. Even if there were no bad trading effects, no bad economic effects, out of this new slant in world politics in which the Americans decide our trading relationships and we do not decide them for ourselves, let us consider for a moment the political implications of the Japanese Peace Treaty. We have had for a long time a difference of opinion, and an honest difference of opinion, with the United States about which Government of China ought to be recognised. Thanks to the wisdom of prudence and foresight of the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, we early recognised that the People's Republican Government of China was the only Government whose rule ran in China, and that, therefore, that was the sensible Government of China to recognise.
The Americans—and I cast no doubt on their sincerity—for what they doubtless believed to be good reasons, thought that it was a good idea to continue to recognise as the Government of China the regime of Chiang Kai-shek on

Formosa—just as though some other Government in the 17th century had recognised the Jacobite exiles in France as being the proper rulers of this country.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): The 18th century.

Mr. Mikardo: My right hon. Friend makes a purely Scottish "crack," but without allowing myself to be diverted by these Caledonian sidetracks, I was making the point that there is this difference of opinion—no doubt a genuine difference of opinion, with sincerity on both sides—between ourselves and the Americans on which Government should be recognised as the Government of China. What are we now proposing? What sort of compromise are we now proposing? We are proposing that, as we cannot agree with the Americans and as they cannot agree with us we should allow our defeated enemies in Japan to make the decision for both of us. Really, that does not make sense in any terms at all.
It does not make sense because allowing the Japanese to make the decision is virtually allowing the Americans to make the decision; and we might as well recognise it and say, "We have given in. We have given you your point of view. We have abandoned it." It does not make sense because it is stretching things a long way when, a short time after the end of the war, we allow the vanquished to decide who are the victors they will recognise. This is really putting an enormous premium on being defeated. I am wondering whether, if this is to be a precedent, it will not pay us hand over fist to get licked in the next war, instead of winning it because, five years afterwards, the vanquished then decide who are to be the masters of the world.
So, as I said when I began, I mitigate my apology for detaining the House. I do not feel a bit shamefaced about it. I hope that other hon. Members will continue the debate, and I hope it will not go out that this House, having spent several hours worrying about its own privileges, did not have the time or the energy to spend a couple of hours giving its view on the Japanese Peace Treaty before it went into Recess, but let the Government, when it returned, present the House with a fait accompli.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. Fernyhough: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to detain you, but I cannot say that I am sorry to detain the House. I have sat here for four years and I have never complained about being kept here all night; so I cannot see why hon. Members should complain if I keep them out of their beds a little longer.
I want to return to the question of the Polish tankers because I am vitally interested in the question of shipbuilding. My constituency was murdered in the inter-war years, and because one of these tankers was built in my Division, and because the greatest fear of the men in the shipyards there is that the bad old days of the inter-war years may return, any policy which tends to stand in the way of this country getting orders for shipbuilding in the future is something about which I must protest.
My hon. Friends have been discussing the Japanese Peace Treaty. In this Peace Treaty the Japanese are given carte blanche as far as shipbuilding is concerned. What is the position today with regard to British shipbuilding? The figures for British shipbuilding, as part of the total world tonnage, are less today than six months ago, whilst the figures for Japanese and German shipbuilding have increased as a percentage of tonnage now being built.
I want to know whether the tankers which the Poles ordered in this country, and which we shall not now deliver, will be built by the Germans or Japanese. I know that in the shipbuilding yards there is grave fear about the competition of Japanese and German shipbuilding. Eighteen months ago every hon. Member in this House representing shipbuilding interests had deputation after deputation from the men in the yards wanting to know what we were going to do about their future. It appeared, before the big re-armament programme was introduced, that shipbuilding would enter once more on a lean time.
The men who had that experience in the inter-war years know well that the present re-armament programme cannot go on for ever and that then British shipyards will once more be looking for foreign orders. If we treat the Poles, or anyone else, in this fashion and they

go to Germany and Japan now, when the lean years come, they will still go there and our people in the shipbuilding industry will again suffer as much unemployment as in their bitter inter-war years. In view of the fact that, roughly, 50 per cent. of the shipping now being built in this country is tankers, I cannot understand why these two particular tankers should have been seized upon. Tankers are being built by our shipyards for many countries. Why pick on these two? I cannot help feeling that, as my hon. Friends have suggested, there has been some outside pressure in this matter. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts upon it.
It is obvious that, because of what two World Wars have cost this nation, if we are to give our people a decent standard of living in the future, exports, and more exports, will have to be the order of the day. We cannot build up an export trade by doing tricks of this kind. I want to feel that this Labour Government, which have done so much to remove the fear of unemployment from the lives of the ordinary people, whenever they go to the country can give that same guarantee. They will be able to do that easier if they reverse this policy and decide that once they have come to an agreement they will keep that agreement, and in keeping the agreement make it possible to maintain full employment in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if it is possible for the House to come to a decision now? There is to be no reply from the Government, and we have discussed this matter at some length. I appeal to the House. I think that at this hour of the morning we might come to a decision.

1.22 a.m.

Mr. Crossman: I cannot feel, Mr. Speaker, that on this Bill the Private Member's right to continue speaking while there are things to say should be denied us, because some of us take the subject of the tankers and the problem of exports to Eastern Europe very seriously indeed. This is our only opportunity to raise this subject. We have waited throughout the evening to raise it. We tried to speak an hour and a half before, and I feel that we must prosecute this matter because we want to change the Government's mind.
It is only fair, after the astonishing reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to say one or two things about that reply, in particular in view of the Liberal and the Tory attitude in the previous debate on Tshekedi Khama. On that, we were told that the Liberal and Tory parties stood for principle; that whenever principle was violated, even in the case of a single man, those parties would rally united.
Now, those of us who were present have heard from the Under-Secretary of State a defence in the case of the two tankers, as follows: that any trade agreement can be violated by the British Government when defence requirements make it necessary. It is a very striking fact that that definition that expediency, in the view of the Under-Secretary, can override a solemn covenant and contract whenever military expediency requires it—that we will tear up our contracts and treaties—was greeted with at least silent approval by the Tory Party; and, of course, the Liberals had gone home, to bed.

Mr. Boothby: It is no part of my business to defend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but it seemed to me that the greater part of his speech was devoted to the proposition that it was the Poles who had broken this Agreement.

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member is so keenly concerned about herrings that he did not pay the closest attention to the argument. The Under-Secretary was particularly careful to tell us that the action was not a reprisal for anything done by the Poles, but was taken as a matter of principle. However unwise I thought it was for him to deny the reprisal, he did deny it. He solemnly asserted to the House that it was a principle of His Majesty's Government to have the right, for defence requirements, to override any contract, however solemnly entered into.
I suggest that it is the duty of the House, having had this astonishing doctrine laid down by a Member from the Front Bench, at least to take notice of it, even if it is 25 minutes past one in the morning, and to consider how it comes that a man as able, as shrewd, as diplomatic, and as experienced as the Under-

Secretary, could have made such a statement to the House. He also added that we all want to continue trade across the Iron Curtain and that we wanted to do all the trade we could with Russia and Poland. How does he imagine we can do trade with Russia and Poland when we have laid down the principle that we can tear up any treaty we like when it is convenient to us? Supposing a Russian or a Pole had announced that principle in public, I should have been told that this is what we are fighting against and that we want to maintain the rule of law. The very objection we have to Communism is totalitarian disregard for the rule of law and preference for military expediency over principle and justice.
Yet we have a solemn announcement from the Front Bench that we are prepared, on any and every occasion, in any trade treaty, to tear up that treaty when military expediency requires it. The hon. Gentleman emphasised it even further. It was a very remarkable statement which will be noted in the Press of the world. He stated that this was because re-armament today is an overriding priority. I should like right hon. and hon. Members to notice the consequence of our foreign policy on our rearmament. It is not only that we have to re-arm but that we have to break all our treaties for the purpose. This is what it comes to, and I say that this is the way one is led when one gives defence an over-riding priority.
We have been told, in debate after debate, that we are re-arming in order to negotiate from strength. That is the phrase. But do right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench believe that we shall strengthen our power of negotiation by announcing that we have a principle of breaking every treaty whenever military expedience demands? Is that rearmament to negotiate or is that re-arming and saying that negotiation does not matter in this sort of world and that the sacredness of treaties does not matter much in a "cold war"? That is the logic of what the Under-Secretary said.
I will, at least, have the courtesy to believe that I should not take it seriously and that there must be some other explanation of our action in forbidding these two tankers to go, other than this


astonishing doctrine which the Under-Secretary has laid down. We all know what it is, just as we all know what was the real reason for the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to Tshekedi Khama. It is one of the things we do not mention because we are too polite. It was not, of course, any order or instruction from Washington. Things are not as simple as that. It was the feeling among certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that if they let the two tankers go to Poland, there might be a row in Parliament, and the anxiety to anticipate and avoid a hostile American reaction.
At least, we have an awkward choice, for either we must accept the Under-Secretary's statement, which tears up the principle for which we fight, or we must take the most probable explanation that once again somebody on the Front Bench said it was better to placate hon. Members before they made a row. We had an instance of that the other day on the subject of rubber being sent to Hong Kong. We announced a British policy. We cut the rubber exports to China through Hong Kong to 2,000 tons a month and then somebody got cold feet. Two days later, having announced one policy, we cancelled all our exports to China to publicise to the world that we were afraid of Congress. I believe the Polish tankers have gone the same way as our rubber exports to China.
It is not fair to blame the Americans for this. It is fair, however, to blame the lack of courage of certain people here in standing up for what we think to be right, and for taking for granted that if they stand up for something, they will get a hostile reaction. On the contrary, in my view, if we had had the courage to keep our obligations in relation to these two tankers or the rubber exports to Hongkong, there would have been millions of Americans and many Americans in the State Department who would have said, "How good it is that the British Government are assisting us in the fight against the hysterical MacArthurite forces."
A great many would like to see this country doing something on matters like the Polish tankers, the exports of rubber, the re-armament of Germany and Spain, and all that long list of items in which we know we are doing wrong

but excuse it by saying, "Well, after all, what could we do?" There is no excuse for saying someone wants it when one has not tried to fight against it and risk something in doing so.
I look forward to this Recess with some apprehension as to how much is going to be granted bit by bit in our absence. At least while we are here we can keep the House up all night trying to prevent these things from happening. In the last Summer Recess we went away with the Government pledged at all costs to prevent the re-armament of Germany and came back with them pledged to support it. In between somebody had been to New York and had been told there would be no American division in Europe unless we toed the line. All that was done without any discussion in this House.
Somebody has referred to the Battle Bill which will probably be passed by the American Congress before we reassemble. The Under-Secretary made a magnificent statement by saying that we ought to wait until they have passed it. It has been the habit of some Ministers to wait for a long time for the Americans to do something and then come to this House and say "Well, gentlemen, it is too late now, but we have made our protests." It is time the Front Bench took a small item like the two tankers seriously and realised that if the Battle Bill is successfully passed through Congress and this move does not register in Washington, we shall be faced with the choice of having our exports determined by the Pentagon in Washington. We shall be subordinated to the reckless control of Washington by a Bill which the Administration does not want.
The Administration are embarrassed by the Kern amendment as it was by the Cash and Carry proposals and the embargoes which President Roosevelt found carried against him in 1938, 1939 and 1940. We could help the Administration to fight the insanities of Congress if our protests were reasonable. But protests could not be made against the Battle Bill in the same week as, against a solemn contract, we refuse to send two tankers to Poland. Whatever may be said by hon. Gentlemen, Washington will believe they know the reason we are not doing so; they will think it is because they want it.
I do beg the Front Bench, if none of them can answer now, at least to impart to those outside that this is a matter of first-rate importance. We cannot maintain the independence of this country without trade across the Iron Curtain. We cannot maintain it if our trade is dictated by strategic requirements laid down by law in Washington. This is almost as crucial an issue as the re-arming of Spain bilaterally by America. These are issues which should determine whether we are a partnership, or something a good deal more ignominious.
If we are partners, there should be no dictation. The Battle Bill will mean dictation by Congress to this country of the goods we are permitted to export to a large section of the world, just as the re-arming of Franco bilaterally is dictation of the form European defence will take in the American defence plan. It is that form of dictatorship which ruins a partnership, and which all good Americans want to avoid.
Where we are sacrificing our natural honour as a trading nation to placate American forces, we should stand up and end it. I say to the Leader of the House, "Let him not be too angry with us." [Interruption.] He says he is amused. Let him not be amused either on this issue. But I am not going to take that seriously. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman meant what he said. He is not amused by it. He knows this is a serious issue. The country's future is at stake, not only his and mine. This is an issue on which we ought to have the courage to stand up for this country. If we can get across to the Government the strength of feeling on this side, then this debate will have done a power of good.

1.39 a.m.

Mr. Boothby: The temptation to make a long-ranging speech on foreign affairs, the opportunity having been so thoughtfully provided by hon. Members opposite, is very great. I do not want to do that, but I do not think the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), should pass, even at this hour of the night, entirely unnoticed by the Opposition. It was certainly the fiercest and most sustained attack on a Government from one of their own nominal

supporters I have ever heard [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench?"] There is a fine galaxy on this Front Bench. I am a whole bench in myself.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): If I am not mistaken the hon. Gentleman has already spoken in this debate, and, therefore, has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Boothby: Not on this subject, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are still debating the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. Boothby: Yes, of course, I beg your pardon.

1.41 a.m.

Mr. Logan: I want to deal with the Japanese Peace Treaty. I remember, a matter of 15 years ago, a Tory Member from a back bench pointed out to the House what the competition of Japan meant to the Lancashire mills. He brought here 12 patterns, and pointed out that we had at last captured the market, and that there was nothing in the world to compete with British manufacture. He showed us 12 different shades of silkings for ladies' dresses at 1s. 8½d. a yard. He said it was a wonderful achievement that had never been accomplished before. He gloried in it. On that occasion we had full benches of Tories interested in the cotton trade of Lancashire—not just nine Tories, as are here now.
Six months after, that same Member came again to the House and brought patterns of his own firm and also Japanese patterns. He handed them round the House for hon. Members to inspect, and asked hon. Members on both sides of the House if they could find any difference in the patterns, or in their quality. No one in the trade knew which were the Japanese. They could not tell the Japanese patterns from the British. But they were made in Japan, and the pattern books were issued here in Britain and sent round to the trade in England. What was produced in England as a masterpiece at 1s. 8½d. a yard was produced in Japan at 6½d. a yard.
I have some knowledge of the mills. I have many good friends Preston way.


The automatic looms are in Japan, and I am very much afraid of that. I do not want to condemn the Government, but I and others have seen the terrible poverty, not only in Yorkshire but in Lancashire, caused amongst our workers by Japanese unfair competition. I want to see Japan raised to a proper standard of life. I want to see her people—I was about to say, eating steak and onions, but, of course, they prefer rice; but I want to see them with plenty of their favourite food. They live on a lower standard than any we have had in this country or on which we would ever live, so they are competitive in the market.
I am at a loss to understand why we have to pay compensation of any sort to a people who spilled the life blood of our people and did their damnedest to beat us in war. History has a wonderful way of repeating itself. That is why I view with concern the trend of events in Japan. Moreover, on the political and military side, if one man goes down another conqueror arises. Japanese competition took the bread and butter from men and women who bore sons who went out to make the supreme sacrifice in the war against the Japanese.
I do not want to condemn or hurt the Government—especially as I do not know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite could do any better in this matter. I feel that what is left of them belong to an obsolete age. They have not even the stamina to stop here when questions of our country's trade are being discussed. There are only nine of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Eight."] Yes, the number has gone down.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Gentleman is here only because he got a three-line Whip by mistake.

Mr. Logan: I am the oldest Member in the House, and when the hon. Member has been asleep I have been here. I am justified in making that retort. It is discourteous to speak out of turn, but when an hon. Member forgets his position I think it right to retort.
I have seen weavers walking from the mills into the town wondering where they were going to get their next bread and butter from or going along for Public Assistance. Do we want those days back again? I do not want to see them because

I vividly recollect those sad times. I hope the Government will give this matter their undivided attention. The Lancashire markets are important to the people of Lancashire, and if we wish to remain in the realm of commerce we should see that proper, protective clauses are included in the Peace Treaty.
When we return here after the Summer Recess the Treaty will have been approved, and but for our discussion tonight everyone would take it for granted that everything in the garden was lovely and that we whole-heartedly approved of its provisions. We do nothing of the kind. It may be all right looking at the willow pattern plates. I have handled many of them in my time, but we must not lose sight of the important issues behind the Treaty. We are under a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) for raising this subject tonight. Japanese competition is important to the pottery towns, because I can see those towns becoming derelict and their people destitute unless steps are taken, by way of protective clauses in the Treaty, to provide against the worst dangers of this competition.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for this day.

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY SCHEME

1.49 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I beg to move,
That the Draft Herring Industry Scheme, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, he approved.
I do not intend to speak for long on this matter not because it is unimportant, but because the House is very familiar with the provisions. We made the provisional order in April of this year, and we gave it quite considerable consideration. I am indebted to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to various sections of the industry outside who have cooperated with us very closely in an attempt to get an agreed document.
There are only three points about which there is still some anxiety, and, very briefly, I should like to try to remove those difficulties. First, in Articles 7 and 8 it will be seen that the Board are given the power to engage in trading activities to cover all aspects of the industry. I


want to say quite unambiguously that it is not, of course, the intention of the Board to usurp the functions of the industry. The provisions in question do not enable them to do so. The powers of compulsory purchase are conferred for the sole purpose of enabling the Board to step in and take action in the general interests where private concerns are not willing or are not able to do so, or can only offer inadequate service.
The second point about which there has been some concern arose under Article 15. Under this Article, the Board have power to make cured herring purchase schemes. The House is indebted to the Select Committee for having drawn its attention to this Article. As Appendix B to the Report shows the power to make such schemes is only a slight, indeed a very slight, extension of the powers specifically authorised in the original Herring Industry Act. The essence of the Article is, that after having consulted with the curers and satisfying themselves that there is a prevailing opinion among the curers in favour of such a scheme, the Board can make a scheme which obliges them to purchase all the cured herring produced in accordance with the scheme, and obliges the curers to sell their production to the Board on the terms specified in the scheme.
The Board thus assume part of the risk of curing, and thereby helps to ensure that curing takes place on the maximum scale consistent with the markets abroad likely to be available. As hon. Members know, the Board have done this in agreement with the curers for some four years. There is a wide measure of agreement about the draft scheme and about the additional powers conferred upon the Board. The scheme, I suggest, will enable the Board to help the industry more effectively to put itself on a firmer basis, commercially and economically.
I admit that the curers lodged objection to Article 15. So did some of my hon. Friends, and some hon. Members opposite. Their objection was based on the ground that the Article makes no provision for arbitration about the terms on which cured herring are to be sold to the Board. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) discussed this subject with me. I think it is important to note that before the curers become committed to the scheme they will have before them the terms which the Board propose to

include in the scheme. I think that perhaps will be enough to persuade hon. Members that it is the minimum necessary.
These terms are, of course, open to negotiation between the Board and the curers, and they do not therefore seem appropriate for arbitration. I repeat, scheme can only be made where there is a prevailing opinion—a very substantial majority—among the section affected, in this case the curers, in favour of the scheme. So it will be true that the curers are free to negotiate with the Board on aspects of the contract into which they are entering. It would be quite proper for them, under the agreement, to secure concessions acceptable to themselves about the fashion in which the contract might be ended if some catastrophic and unlooked for event wiped out, or even diminished, the overseas markets available.
The third point arises from the fact that the Board take power to fish. I need not spend any time in assuring the House that it is not a normal undertaking. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) questioned me the other day about the old high quality summer sales of herring; but here, the shoals have not been present, and the fishermen have not had the resources to attack the shoals. That is the kind of venture which the Board might take upon itself.

Sir John Mellor: On that point I wonder if we could have the observations of the Secretary of State upon the Eighth Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has reported the draft order to the House? That draws the attention of the House to the fact that it appears to be an unusual or unexpected use of the statute under which it is made. May we have his observations on that Report?

Mr. McNeil: I have already indicated our indebtedness to the Select Committee in three matters to which it has drawn our attention. It is quite reasonable that the Select Committee should be cautious, and even suspicious about this unusual power, but I repeat that there is no intention other than that the power should only be used for what I might term "non-commercial fishing." It was a subject with which, I think, hon. Mem-


bers became familiar during our discussions on the White Fish Industry Bill.

Sir J. Mellor: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does appreciate that a Select Committee has reported this Order as deserving of special attention by the House. The Select Committee is not concerned with the merits of the order; it is never so concerned. Its concern was as to whether the provisions of the order were made within the scope of the powers conferred by the statute under which it was made. That is the point to which I invite the attention of the Secretary of State.

Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Baronet turns back to Appendix B, on page 4 of the Eighth Report of the Select Committee, he will see that we have replied at some length to that point. I think that we have made an effective reply. The essence of the reply turns on the last paragraph, 3.
Before exercising such powers the Board must, first, satisfy themselves that the proposed exercise is necessary in order to secure proper provision for the needs of the herring industry, and, secondly, consult so far as is practicable with persons or organisations appearing to them to be representative of the interests concerned.

Sir J. Mellor: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but he will appreciate that it was after consideration of that memorandum that the Select Committee reported that the order should receive the special attention of the House as making an unusual or unexpected use of the powers.

Mr. McNeil: When the Eighth Report was published, we added an Appendix replying to the observations of the Select Committee.

Sir J. Mellor: If the Secretary of State would be so good as to look at the dates he will see that the date of the Memorandum is 21st July while the date of the Report is 23rd July. I therefore think that my contention is correct.

Mr. McNeil: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is obviously right. Let me try to reply. The Order is drawn very widely, and provides that the powers necessary are required for the organisation and regulation of the industry. The powers, broadly speaking, are those de-

rived from the Herring Industry Act, and I should think that, provided the Board satisfy themselves that the action is essential to meet some re-organisation criteria, they would be acting quite properly.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is interested in any particular aspect of the powers which we proposed the Board should have. I have referred to the only three to which, as far as I know, objection has been taken, or upon which anxiety has been expressed. I hope that he and the House generally will agree that we have met any reasonable objection upon the subject.
I do not complain, and I am sure no one in the House will complain, about the great caution displayed by the Select Committee, or about the caution which is normal in the House upon an Instrument of this kind. But we have repeatedly over recent years been told—and been told from both sides of the House—that the Herring Industry Board do not have the powers necessary for the job. I believe we are now giving them, not any extravagant powers but essential and, I hope, well defined powers.
They are not out of line with the powers which we have offered to the other side of the fishing industry, and I think that it will be agreed on all sides that the Herring Industry Board now, for the first time, have the Instruments necessary for their job. We hope they will bring to this job, which is of great importance not only to this section of our economy but to the whole country, vigour and an imaginative use of these powers.

2.3 a.m.

Mr. Duthie: This is an Order of such fundamental importance to the constituency I represent that I should like, even at this late hour, to crave the indulgence of the House to make a few brief comments on it. The Herring Industry Board as we know it have been very largely stultified by its lack of adequate powers. We have pleaded from this side of the House, since 1945 to my own knowledge, that these fuller powers should be accorded to the Board.

Mr. Edward Evans: And from this side.

Mr. Duthie: I believe that the powers now are adequate, and I believe that this is a good Instrument, but we cannot


guarantee that it will be successful. There is the human element to be considered, and it is the duty of Ministers, of this House and of the industry to see that the Board is functioning properly, and, above all, to see that Article 5 is carried out to the fullest possible extent, for it says:
It shall be the duty of the Board to exercise their powers so as to promote the development of the herring industry.
There are one or two points which I believe are pertinent, and which should be voiced. I see in this Order the opportunity, and almost I would hope the certainty, of certain of our smaller herring ports, which have been moribund for years—maybe through lower prices being appearing to be offered—being brought within the orbit of the schemes the Board will introduce as a result of this Order. Gear costs are a vital consideration which the Board must take in hand.
I am very glad to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Board will not operate in competition with existing efficient businesses. I am also glad to have elucidation about Clause 15. The Board have powers now to develop export businesses, particularly with regard to incursion into new markets or into markets which at present are the prerogative of the Dutch and the Norwegians.
This Order is of benefit to fishermen. The Herring Board have our best wishes. It has the green light. We want them to go ahead and do a good job.

2.6 a.m.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: It is a curious commentary on our affairs that we have two commodities with which nature provides this country—coal and the herring—and have witnessed the exodus from this Chamber of hon. Members who have been tearing their hair out over tankers for Poland and the Japanese Peace Treaty. I have in my division a most efficient rayon industry which has developed since the war, and I would have liked to intervene in that debate on the question of likely Japanese competition in the next few years. But I regard this as a much more valuable topic on which we should be spending our time tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
It is all very well to cheer ironically, but if the kipper had not come to the rescue of our eggs and bacon in the last ten years, this country would have been in a sorry plight. It is only because of the efforts of those great people in our herring fishing constituencies who have kept the industry going, despite all the difficulties of the last 20 or 30 years, that we have been able to eke out our supplies with herring and kippers and bloaters and buckling.
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) rightly said that the people he represents, and his fellow Members, have worked with us to try to get a really efficient, workable scheme for this great national industry. Over the last few years we have worked together and eventually these wide powers have now been conferred on the Herring Industry Board. We hope that they will use these wide powers, as the Order says:
with a view to better effecting the reorganisation, development and regulation of the herring industry.
As the Minister has said, these draft regulations came out in April, and although they caused no ripple in places like Leek and Stoke, they certainly did in Great Yarmouth. The people who will be affected over the next few years by the regulations on this piece of paper will look carefully into the various points made tonight.
Some of them were facing alarming consequences because, from the little corner of East Anglia which I have the honour to represent, practically the whole of the trade is done with the Levant—with countries like Palestine and Egypt and, further west, towards Italy. The curing of herring for many hundreds of years has been developed by the forefathers of my present constituents. Therefore, when they saw some of the wide powers of these draft regulations they looked closely into them and we had discussions.
I gave them the assurance in our own town hall that the Minister has given us tonight, and I am glad that I was backing the right horse in assuring them that these powers will not be used to put out of business the only people in this country at present who know how to run that part of it. We have got that assurance, and therefore I can go back to Yarmouth


during the Recess with a spirit of calm and confidence to meet these people and say, "You are to be allowed to carry on with your old job; you are going to be encouraged and given all the power of the State behind you to increase that export trade throughout the Mediterranean."
But I must make this quite clear. Paragraph 27 of the Order, for instance, says:
The Board may, after consultation with such persons or organisations as appear to them to be representative of the interests concerned …
That is to say, representatives of the interests concerned will be consulted. That, I take it, is a promise, and I take it that the Secretary of State is giving the promise tonight that the people concerned in that industry will be consulted when regulations are made carrying out these very wide powers, because our experience in East Anglia has tended to be the opposite.
Since the war, when the Herring Industry Board have had increased powers, they have had their advisory councils, of which we have heard so much discussion in the last few weeks, but I am told by the people who really would be of use, according to these words in paragraph 27, that they have hardly ever been brought into consultation at all; that they have been a dead letter. There is not much point in having advisory councils if they do not function properly, and I hope it will go forth from the House tonight that these people, who are the only people who know their particular business, really will be consulted through the advisory councils when they are set up.
I do not hesitate to speak up for England in these matters. We are discussing now an industry which has been far too long controlled from the smaller end of that industry in another country—in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] I have beside me my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), who backs me up to the hilt, and who bears a Welsh name. We all know by looking at the illustrated papers that towards the latter end of the year—any year, in fact—the great herring season of this island takes place in Yarmouth, and that the combined fleets of England and Scotland are there.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: Mr. J. J. Robertson (Berwick and East Lothian)  rose—

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: Let me make my point. The peak of the herring season is in the East Anglian season, when the combined fleets of England and Scotland assemble in the port of Yarmouth.

Mr. Boothby: Where are the combined fleets now? They are at Peterhead and Fraserburgh.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: I am not disputing where they are now. Some are at South Shields. Hon. Members have been eating South Shields kippers tonight. The time when the boats—

Mr. George Wigg: How does my hon. and gallant Friend tell the difference between a Scottish and an English herring?

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: I will see that when we meet after the Recess the experts mentioned in the draft Order give a demonstration. A scientific skill is involved. Many curers and processors will say that the herrings now being caught off the East Coast of England and Scotland are nothing like as good for making kippers as those we shall be getting in October off Yarmouth.
This is the only occasion when I can stand up for the English fishing interests and say that it is about time they were consulted more often and more easily than in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense. For instance, when the fleets are assembled for the great autumn fishing off Yarmouth, there are meetings of the Herring Board and Advisory Council. I am assured by our processors, whom I met only a few weeks ago to discuss this, that they are expected to leave their business at the peak of the season—it lasts only a matter of weeks—and go to Edinburgh.

Mr. Manuel: Why not?

Mr. McNeil: This is nonsense. I have heard this allegation made and I have investigated it. A senior official of the Board is at Great Yarmouth, as he should be, during the East Anglian season. Members of the Board are there whenever it is necessary, and moreover, there is such an instrument as a telephone.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: It is not very often that people say I talk nonsense.
I said that they are expected to leave the Yarmouth and Lowestoft areas when the whole of the fishing fleet is there and go haring-off to Edinburgh to attend meetings. The whole of the Herring Board should go to Yarmouth at that time of the year. I know there is an expert there because I have met the man, and he is a very good man. But he is not the whole of the herring industry. I know that the cross-country journey from Yarmouth to Edinburgh is one of the worst which can be made on the railway system, whether it is run by a nationalised body or by private enterprise, but I have made my point which, I hope, has struck home. I hope that before I come back after the Recess I shall have met the representatives of the Herring Board and find that the complaint of my constituent is not justified.
Hon. Members who represent herring ports are fully in agreement with the wide issue behind this Order. We think this is overdue and that the Tories ought to have done this years and years ago. This is a great industry which has a real organisation for the first time and we all wish it well.

2.17 a.m.

Mr. Boothby: The House will be glad to get relief from tankers to Poland and rayon by the very real and vital subject of herrings. It is a great relief to know that nobody can accuse me of ever having spoken before upon this particular subject; at any rate, not today. I respect the enthusiasm of the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn), but he did talk some nonsense. It is well known to everybody that the finest-quality herring is that caught off the coast of Scotland. By the time the herring fleet reaches the hon. and gallant Member's constituency, herrings may be more plentiful, but they are very much coarser.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: Whether they are of high or low quality, herrings are there in such quantities that they are an industry vital to the economy of Yarmouth.

Mr. Boothby: No one disagrees. During the late autumn months, Yarmouth

and Lowestoft are the centres. However, now the fleets are all up in my constituency and I hope they enjoy themselves very much because they are catching a very fine quality herring there at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), who has now disappeared, was right in saying this Order exercised rather unusual powers in relation to the statute under which it is to be made, and I think the attention of the House was rightly drawn to that fact by the Select Committee. I am satisfied myself that there will be no indiscriminate use of the trading powers granted to the Board, which might place it in competition with existing concerns which are trading well and doing their job properly.
I think that is very important. I am also satisfied that, with the exception of canning, the home market—kippers, bucklings and bloaters—will be excluded from the operation of the scheme. I think it is right to separate the home market where the law of supply and demand should be allowed to play more freely. I am enthusiastic about the point raised by the Secretary of State about the necessity of having prevailing opinion among the interests concerned in favour of any particular scheme. I think, too, that the licensing powers of the Board have been modified in the draft now before the House.
The House ought to pass this scheme which brings the herring industry, as the Secretary of State has said, into line with the White Fish Authority. The Herring Board will have all the powers they need. But this implies something. It means that the Herring Board will have no further excuse for ineffective action. They have been very much inclined to excuse what I think is their great lack of vigour and energy by saying that they had not got sufficient powers to do all they wanted. There cannot possibly be any complaint now about not having all the powers they need. They have all the powers that the White Fish Authority have and can have no excuse for not taking vigorous action.
The Board ought to go to Yarmouth in the height of the season. They should be in Fraserburgh now. It is well known throughout the industry and I think the Scottish Office know it, too, that the Herring Industry Board have been a dis-


appointment and have given the impression of weakness. I hope they will show much more vigour. It is important that they should do so. The manager is first-class, but the rest of the Board do not give the impression of being strong. It should not be the case that I should have to ask some of my hon. Friends representing herring constituencies to go to the Treasury and impress on the Economic Secretary the possibility of opening a market in Palestine. We had to do that. It ought to have been done a long time ago. The Herring Board should have done it.

Mr. McNeil: The Herring Industry Board, as a Board, were in Yarmouth during the last fishing season.

Mr. Boothby: That is untrue.

Miss Irene Ward: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it was in North Shields as well?

2.25 a.m.

Mr. Alex. Anderson: When an hon. Member makes a constituency speech its length is generally in inverse proportion to the knowledge of the industry, and I would like to commend the speech of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), which was the model of correctness and brevity.
We should not part from this Order without stating what are the essential facts. The Herring Industry Board have had to be called into being, and have had to be given additional powers, because private enterprise in the herring fishing industry has failed to provide a return on capital, the replacement of shipping, to give a living to the men who work in it, and to provide markets for the produce of the industry. We are now to have Government intervention under this Order, and I should regret exceedingly if it was not realised throughout the country that any attempt that the Opposition have made has been to get more money from the Government without giving up any of the powers to run the industry under private enterprise.
The position of the fishing industry today is such that the Board require not merely powers but the courage to use them. They require courage particularly to tackle the vested interests which have been responsible for the state the industry is in today.

Mr. Boothby: Rubbish.

Mr. Anderson: I believe that my experience in the fishing industry is of longer standing, and is more intimate, than that of the hon. Member.

Mr. Boothby: Has the hon. Member represented one of the leading herring industry constituencies for 27 years?

Mr. Anderson: I have not had the privilege of representing the industry, but my father worked in it, my mother gutted herring to get money to send me to a university. Every one of my family went down to the sea in boats and had nothing to do with the money changers of whom the hon. Member is the mouthpiece. I am one who represents the real fishing industry, and who does not do as the hon. Member does.

Mr. Boothby: Tell them that in Fraser-burgh and Peterhead.

Mr. Anderson: I am willing to go on to any platform in any fishing station in Britain, and I have been in Aberdeen recently.
We do not expect the Board to spend their time on the favourable ports. We have heard the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn) one of the most favoured fishing places in Britain, claiming that the industry is not getting sufficient attention. It has the sea at its feet, the fish within 12 miles, the fleets concentrated there, and the London market at its door. What are the Board going to do for the faraway places, such as Stornoway and Mallaig? We want less attention to be paid to Fraserburgh and Peterhead, and Yarmouth and Lowestoft, and more attention given to the outlying areas.
Most of all, we want to face the fact that the industry in Britain is going through a great transition. All this talk about the search for foreign markets is like telling people they are going back to the economy of potatoes and herring. If we are to have a herring fishing industry it must be organised on modern lines, it must fish for residuals and oils, and what is left must be eaten by the people who are prepared to go back to the economy in which hon. Members opposite kept me for many years. That is the point we have to face.
This Order comes into being with the blessing of both sides of the House, a modified blessing from the Opposition. It gives a prospect for the first time that the men who catch the fish will get a fair return for their labour, and that the country will get from a hardy people a return for the work they do.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: I appreciate my unpopularity in rising at this late hour. I have no desire to compete against my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. A. Anderson) or the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), as one who has special qualifications to speak on this subject, but I would modestly point out that I am, I think, the only Member who has been a herring fisherman. It is for that reason I ask the House to bear with me for a few moments while I congratulate the Herring Board on bringing forward this scheme.
This is, I think, by far the most progressive step that has been taken by the Scottish Office in giving added powers to the Herring Board. I hope that the House will not delay in passing this Motion, for we are all agreed that the Herring Board requires more powers. Many of us on this side have advocated that, as well as hon. Members on the other side who represent fishing constituencies.
I wish to correct the impression given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) about the predominance of Yarmouth in the herring fishing industry. As a matter of fact, 60 per cent. of the total catch of herring in the United Kingdom is landed from Scottish boats. It is perfectly true that many of them go to Yarmouth, but the best herring are found along the north-west coast of Scotland and around the Shetlands. I hope that these points will be borne in mind.
I also hope that the Herring Board will use their powers vigorously and wisely. It is necessary, I think, that there should be on the Board people who have some practical knowledge of the industry. That is tremendously important from the point of view of the fishermen. It is not good enough that we should appoint any person who is not

acquainted with the very complex nature of this very important industry. I regard this as one of the best Orders that we have had from the Scottish Office affecting the herring fishing industry. I should like to join with other hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies in wishing the scheme the best possible success.

2.32 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I apologise to the House for the lateness of the hour at which I have to speak, but I do not apologise for speaking on behalf of a section of our people to whom the whole nation turns with hope in time of war and whose interests in peace ought to be considered.
It is a refreshing change to consider this subject after some of the other subjects with which we have been concerned day and night for the last days and months. I do not apologise for speaking on behalf of the fishermen. I welcome the defence which my hon. Friends who sit for the pottery and cotton trade areas put up for their constituents' interests in the debate we had just now, and who have represented those interests more than once lately, but it does not seem to me less important to turn our attention from Japan and distant territories to our own country, and from those industries to other home industries.
It strikes me as rather strange, to say the least, that those hon. Members who reprimanded others for not being here when they were representing the pottery and cotton trades interests should, as soon as herring are mentioned, walk out, showing contempt. That, I think, is disgraceful. There is one of them now, one of my hon. Friends, actually sitting on the opposite side of the House at this moment.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Member, but I think I spend as much time in this Chamber listening to all sorts of speeches as any other Member. I had been in the Chamber for many hours before I went out, and I think that my hon. Friend's reproof of me was unnecessary.

Mr. MacMillan: I did not intend to be unkind, and if the hon. Member thinks I was let me assure him it is that it comes to me naturally. I have no personal ill-


feeling towards him; indeed, I respect his capacity and his interest in the affairs of this House.
I can understand the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) coming forward in support of this scheme tonight. They know that the people in the industry have been unable to put forward any proposals which they would back with their money, confidence, and their own faith in the industry. They were glad and relieved when the Government came forward and organised a plan for the industry to place it on a basis of stability and security for the workers for the first time. It also covers other interests as well, which will benefit from this scheme.
I remember the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, expressing sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn) when he spoke about the desirability of the Herring Board meeting in his constituency from time to time. On the other hand, we must remember that when the East Anglia fishing season is going full out every agency and official is to be found in East Anglia. Very few of them are in Scotland.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: They must have been on holiday.

Mr. MacMillan: They were in East Anglia and whether they were on holiday or not is something with which I am not now concerned. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be generous and interested enough to agree that the best processing firms in England are Scottish firms. We are not unwilling to export skill, ability and capital to help our English friends at any time.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: Surely my hon. Friend knows that there is one name only in the great export trade to the Levant and that is Henry Sutton, of Great Yarmouth?

Mr. MacMillan: I do not get the full relevancy of that remark if it was intended to be a reply to me. I was only speaking about the best processing firms, which are all Scottish. The greatest percentages of herrings caught are caught in Scottish waters and by Scottish fishermen. I am not, however, prepared to

argue the Scottish case to the absurd point of nationalism, and I am sure that my English friends feel the same.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Gentleman will concede, as against his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. A. Anderson), that Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Great Yarmouth have some importance in this industry?

Mr. MacMillan: I agree that they are so important in this industry in the North that they do not need as much help from the Herring Board as the Western Isles, which I represent. Wick is another place which needs a considerable amount of assistance. Fraserburgh and Peterhead have the Herring Board all to themselves and they get a great deal of attention. They have facilities for markets, transport and a whole lot of other things that Storonaway and Wick and other parts of the Western Isles have not got.
I hope that the Herring Board will apply their powers to help those areas which are not able to help themselves for reasons of remoteness, lack of proper transport or other difficulties from which they suffer.
Aberdeen is well based upon white fish. Herrings are not so important to her. They are of some importance, of course, but not as vitally important as they are to some of these smaller places. While we welcome this scheme, and the Board's new powers, I must express the hope that the Board will show more initiative than they have done so far. They are no longer tied down to experimentation, and to apologising all the time because they have no power and no money, and are not allowed to go into the industry. I hope that they will now go forward.
May I just raise this point—and I would like the attention of the Minister; I would like at least one Scotsman's attention for a moment. I am not trying to be rude, but just to speak a little louder. Is there to be a definite arrangement about the term of office of the chairman of the Board? I think it is important that there should be some continuity and security and stability for the chairman if we are to have a Board responsible for the industry. We do not know where we stand at the moment.


We only know the position for next year. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is racking his brain now for a really good man, who ought not to be a retired business man, or barrister, a retired politician or trade union leader, but someone who knows something about the herring industry. He should then stay in that office for a reasonable period.
I do not propose to strain the right hon. Gentleman's patience or courtesy any further. My point was one of considerable importance, namely, that now that the Board have powers they should use them not only where it is easiest to do so, but where they are most effective.

2.42 a.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I have listened with great interest to the battle between the Scots and the English. I only hope that now that every Scotchman has batted.

Mr. Alex. Anderson: Scotsman.

Miss Ward: The hon. Gentleman says "Scotsman," but I take pride in being on the right side of the Border.
North Shields is a very important fishing centre. Our impression in that part of the world is that the Scotch are very good publicists. They always intervene for their own fishing industry on every possible opportunity. I think that on this very important occasion it is necessary that some reinforcements in respect of the English fishing ports should be brought up. That being so, I wish to add, for my part of the world. my congratulations on the introduction of the Order, my good wishes to the Herring Board for the future, and to express my hope that they will give good service to our fishermen and to those who are concerned with the processing, curing, and selling of herrings.
After all, the herring industry is of extreme importance to all sections of the country; not only those who earn their livelihoods in it, but also those who have great good fortune in eating the herrings; and also because our fishing fleets have done so much service for our defence. I hope that if the Board are carrying out perambulations from one fishing port to another they will find the opportunity to send representatives to North Shields,

where we shall give them a great welcome, and that in return for that welcome they will do something for us.
I am glad to join with other hon. Members who have spoken tonight and I hope that in future this industry will receive the attention which it undoubtedly deserves. In conclusion, may I say how glad I am to be able to advocate the excellent fish which comes from my constituency? I hope that every hon. Member will remember that.

2.46 a.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: At this hour of the morning when popularity and merit are judged by brevity, I shall aim at making the shortest speech of this short debate. I am always short; but that is another matter. I have had the pleasure of being on the committee which considered this question; I know all about the scheme, and I think it excellent. I give it my blessing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Herring Industry Scheme, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Hemsworth [copy presented, 26th July, approved.] —[Mr. de Freitas.]

Orders of the Day — BUILDING OPERATIONS (CONTROL)

2.48 a.m.

Mr. Black: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 20th June, 1951, entitled the Control of Building Operations (No. 16) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 1082), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be annulled.
I must express my regret for detaining the House at this hour, but it was not my wish to have brought forward this Prayer tonight. I endeavoured to do so on Monday of last week, when the business of the day terminated soon after 10 p.m., but I did not then have the opportunity of doing so.
The Order against which my hon. Friends and I pray tonight continues for a further period of a year, from 1st July last, the restriction on building operations to the amount of £100 each in respect of residential properties, and £500 each in respect of commercial buildings. It is clear that when this type of control was first imposed in 1941 it was regarded as a temporary and emergency matter only to deal with the abnormal conditions then arising from the war. Certainly, no one at that time contemplated that more than 10 years later, and after the war had been over for more than six years, we should still be subjected to an oppressive control of this kind.
I propose to examine, under three heads, the problem whether this control should be continued for a further period. I come, therefore, to my first question: Is this kind of control capable of being justified now that the war has been over for more than six years? It seems to me that this is clearly a question on which the onus of proof rests upon the Minister who desires to continue the control, rather than upon those of us who are questioning whether its continuance is really necessary. The Minister is, of course, possessed of information regarding the present and the potential resources of the building industry, in labour and materials, which is not readily available to ordinary Members of this House, and I hope that he has come to the House tonight resolved to give us full information in support of the continuance of this Order for a further year.
I turn now to my second question: Are the limits of £100 for residential and £500 for commercial buildings appropriate figures in present circumstances? I remind the House that when this type of control was first imposed in 1941 the permitted amount was £100; that is to say, the same figure as in the present Order for residential properties. If the value of our money were the same today as in 1941, it would still be difficult, in my submission, to justify a control as restrictive after six years of peace as at the height of the war.
When account is taken of the fact that the purchasing value of our money is today not much more than half what it was in 1941, and that the cost of repairs to buildings is nearly double, it becomes obvious that the amount of building work which the ordinary citizen can execute

today without a licence is only about half what it was in 1941. I submit that it will be very difficult for the Minister to satisfy the House that this state of affairs is right. It is my contention that, at the very least, the limit for residential properties should be increased from £100 to £200, thereby enabling approximately the same amount of work to be carried out in a year as was possible under the Order of 1941.
I come now to my third and final question: Is the present method of control appropriate, or is there a better alternative? My submission is that the present system of control is quite inappropriate and produces inequalities and inconsistencies which cannot possibly be justified. How can the Minister justify a control which enables exactly the same amount to be spent in a year on all residential properties, whether it be the case of a one-room flat, on the one hand, or a mansion containing 100 rooms, on the other?
Perhaps I may for a moment or two anticipate the reply which I think the Minister will make on this point, and indicate why his reply, if it follows that line, will be quite unconvincing?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member is lucky to have an audience.

Mr. Black: I feel sure that the Minister will make the point that in reality the position is not quite so absurd as it would appear to be. In the case of large properties, he will no doubt point out that, where it is obviously impossible for the annual cost of repairs to be contained within the limit of £100, the Ministry is able and willing to grant licences to enable a larger annual sum to be expended.
But may I examine what is involved in this vast system of licensing which has grown up as a result of these controls on building operations? I have made inquiries in one of the boroughs forming part of my own Parliamentary Division, and I find that the number of licence applications dealt with under this Order works out in the neighbourhood of 1,200 a year. Assuming that, based on population, the rate of licence applications is more or less uniform throughout the country, it means that the local authorities are today dealing with licence applications at the rate of about 900,000 a year.
Every licence application needs a minimum of 27 answers to questions and to sub-questions, which means, at the very least, if my figures are correct, as I believe them to me, that something like 24,300,000 questions have to be filled in each year in applications to the local authorities for licences to carry out works in excess of the permitted limits under the Order.
I want to ask the Minister seriously whether this vast system of controls, with the vast amount of paper work involved on the part of owners of houses, builders, local authorities and his own Ministry, can really be justified any longer. I submit to him that the time is more than overdue for some considerable relaxation, both as to the limits fixed under the Order and as to the basis on which the Order is framed.

2.59 a.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to second the Motion.
I believe that this Order now represents something of an anachronism and that the figure of £100, which is still contained in it, is a replica of the original figure introduced in 1941, notwithstanding the enormous change in conditions and in the levels of costs both for materials and for labour.
Quite apart from the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), I should like to examine in some detail the materials position in so far as it affects the repair of private properties and residences in the United Kingdom. However we may feel in any quarter of the House as to how new houses should be built, it is undeniable that today there are approximately ten million established privately-owned houses which have to be maintained, and it is undoubtedly in the public interest that they should be maintained on the best possible basis and as economically as possible.
A few years ago, and in fact until 18 months back, there was a very real objection to increasing the limit under the Order on the plea that there were insufficient materials available. The particular difficulty, of course, was with timber. Today, I believe, no such difficulty exists. The softwood position is better than it has been at any time since

the end of the war. Imports this year are approaching the figure for the average pre-war year. There is no great shortage of bricks. There is no great shortage of cement.

Mr. Fernyhough: There is a shortage of bricks in some parts.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member says that there may be a shortage in some parts. There may be local shortages, but over-all there is no great shortage. There is no great shortage of bricks or of the auxiliary materials, including glass, putty and so on, which are required for maintenance purposes. On that score, I believe that the Minister, when he replies, must agree that there is no physical reason for the limitation, or any further limitation, in the amount of money that can be spent on house building work.
The argument has often been advanced that we must restrict the limit to £100 and allow the local authorities to deal by licence method—direct licences granted in each and every case against an application—with jobs which run to more than £100 in cost. But that is creating today a very real difficulty. There is hardly a local authority which can get from the Ministry of Works a sufficient global allocation of money per annum for licence purposes to deal with all the individual applications for licences which are lodged with that authority. Be they rural or urban, all local authorities find themselves in the position of being over-subscribed with applications.
I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman would accede to a request to raise the limit for private work without licence from £100 to, say, £250, that would automatically yield a commensurate lightening of the load of licence applications on the local authorities for work in excess of £100, and would enable a greater measure of conversion work to be done to older houses and buildings which might possibly be made into accommodation units and which are at present being wasted.

Mrs. Middleton: Where would the building labour come from to utilise all the allowances up to £250?

Mr. Nabarro: There is, of course, a shortage of building labour in certain parts of the country.

Mrs. Middleton: In most parts.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, but in many towns, particularly in the Midlands, there is a considerable reservoir of jobbing labour available that cannot readily be used for new housing construction, which ought to be used in large measure for maintenance work and for conversion work, but at present it is not beng used for that purpose.

Mr. Shurmer: It is in Birmingham.

Mr. Nabarro: Very many applications have been made to local authorities in all parts of the country during the last 12 or 18 months for fuel economy equipment to be installed in the older houses, notably with a view to saving supplies of coal and coke. Many of those applications for licences have had to be refused by the local authorities because their global allocation from the Ministry of Works is not sufficiently large. Again, if the Minister would agree to put up the limit from £100 to £250, he would automatically enable these applications for fuel-saving equipment to be accommodated within the extra span, and applications for which licences at present have to be granted would instead, under a revised upper limit of £250, come within the licence-free class. I repeat: this £100 limit is an anachronism, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in due course will allow a relaxation of the limit which is imposed.

3.5 a.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. George Brown): I think the Debate shows considerable misunderstanding of the position. The reason for the general Order, the Control of Building Operations Order, which we are now discussing, has nothing to do with the war or war conditions, but with the fact that the essential building programme on which we are embarking—housing, power stations, factories, industrial buildings, and the defence programme—is of such an order that unless we take some steps to control the less essential work, the usage of materials and labour, we shall not get the vital, essential part of the building programme done.
It is not in accord with the facts to talk about there being a surplus of materials available, or about there being a great reservoir of building labour anywhere in

the country. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mentioned the Midlands, where there is an outstanding vacancy list of more than 4,000 persons and an unemployed figure of only about 700. So, in the very region he chose, there is a considerable outstanding demand for all types of building trade labour, and this is reproduced to a great degree over the rest of the country.

Mr. Nabarro: I did not use the word "surplus," and I did not say "a great reservoir of labour." I did say that there is an improved raw materials position.

Mr. Brown: Do not let us quarrel about it. The whole point was that there were materials and a reservoir of labour available. I say that there are neither, and I have quoted figures from the region the hon. Member mentioned to show that so.
The hon. Gentlemen who spoke during this debate have not faced the big issue. If we increased the amount of work which can be done without any licence or without control, what part of the building programme would be cut down to make it possible? I am sure that everyone will agree that the new works, defence work, the industrial programme, power-stations, housing take by far the biggest share in terms of value, ought to go on. The other half of the programme covers the general miscellaneous field. It is roughly divided into two halves—the unlicensed work of £100 or £500 limit, and the work we license in that field other than up to this limit. To the hon. Member who said that we should increase the amount of work done under the limit by raising the amount, which would mean having less controls, I would say that that would achieve no purpose, because the work which had to be done above the existing limit would still be the same by a similar amount.
I went into this matter very carefully to see whether these limits were right, and I considered representations that they should be increased. I also considered representations that they ought to be reduced because of the enormous number of vacancies for labour on the books throughout the country, and also because there were no spare materials to meet the increased programme. I consulted the National Consultative Council of the Building Industry and came to the con-


clusion that the right thing to do in the circumstances was to keep the limit where it was.
On the whole, the effect of the increased building programme just about offsets the effect of the increased costs, and if I can keep it where it is the balance will probably be about right for another year. The hon. Member for Wimbledon said that this Order makes more paper work. It does the very opposite. To annul the Order would mean abolishing the licence free sites; and so, in fact, the only way to increase the paper work is by not allowing the Order by carrying this Motion. This Order reduces the amount of paper work by allowing £300 million worth of work to be done without any licences at all. I could go into this matter at great length, but I do not think hon. Gentlemen would want it. The point has been made, and I am certain that, having regard to the available labour and raw materials, I could not increase the limit this year. However, it is only for one year, and it will be a matter for consideration at the

expiry of the current Order whether it will be an advantage to change it.

Mr. Black: On the question of the increase in paper work, the implications were quite clear. If the Order is annulled there will be no free limit. The only way this matter could be debated was by putting down a Prayer, and the purpose of putting down this Motion was to ask the Minister to consider substituting for this Order another which would have increased the limit. Many of us feel unconvinced by the reply the Minister has given, but as he has made it clear that before a renewal of the Order, which is to be effective until next year, the whole position will be reviewed carefully. I beg to ask leave the withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Mitchison: In order to test the numerical strength of the Opposition and the sincerity behind this Motion, I suggest that the House ought to divide.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 0; Noes, 207.

Division No. 170.]
AYES
[3.15 a.m.


NIL


TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Mr. Mitchison and Mr. Arthur Lewis.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hannan, W.


Adams, Richard
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hardman, D. R.


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hardy, E. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hargreaves, A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Deer, G.
Hayman, F. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Delargy, H. J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Baird, J.
Dodds, N. N.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hobson, C. R.


Bartley, P.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holman, P.


Benn, Wedgwood
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Benson, G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hoy, J.


Beswick, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hubbard, T.


Bing, G. H. C
Ewart, R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Blyton, W. R
Field, Capt. W. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Boardman, H.
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bottomley, A. G.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Janner, B.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Follick, M.
Jay, D. P. T.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Foot, M. M.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jenkins, R. H.


Burton, Miss E.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Callaghan, L. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Champion, A. J.
Gilzean, A.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Glanville, James (Consett)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Clunie, J.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Keenan, W


Cocks, F. S.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Kenyon, C.


Collick, P.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Collindridge, F.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R
King, Dr. H. M.


Cook, T. F.
Grey, C. F.
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kinley, J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, W. (Manchester Exchange)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Crawley, A.
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Lindgren, G. S.


Crossman, R. H. S
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Logan, D. G.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, W. W.
McAllister, G.




MacColl, J. E.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


McGhee, H. G.
Pannell, T. C.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Mack, J. D.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pearson, A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


McLeavy, F.
Peart, T. F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Popplewell, E.
Timmons, J.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Porter, G.
Wallace, H. W.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Watkins, T. E.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Manuel, A. C.
Pryde, D. J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Rees, Mrs. D.
West, D. G.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Reeves, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Mayhew, C. P.
Rhodes, H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Messer, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wigg, G.


Mikardo, Ian.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Moeran, E. W.
Ross, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Monslow, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Moody, A. S.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Morley, R.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, David (Neath)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Moyle, A.
Slater, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mulley, F. W
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Nally, W.
Sparks, J. A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Steele, T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wise, F. J.


O'Brien, T.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Yates, V. F.


Oldfield, W. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith



Orbach, M.
Sylvester, G. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paget, R. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Royle.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TIED COTTAGES, SCOTLAND (EVICTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

3.22 a.m.

Mr. Pryde: The subject I want to raise tonight has caused great concern to my constituency, and, I think, generally. For centuries the Scottish people have looked to the sheriff courts as being the places where the law of Scotland was administered. While people have accused us in Scotland of being very ungenerous to our sheriffs in regard to remuneration, while some have even charged us with being parsimonious, nevertheless, generally speaking, the Scottish people are secretly very proud of their legal system and on more than one occasion we have been indebted to fearless sheriffs in the sheriffs courts in Scotland for unflinchingly doing their duty.
But I intend to show that there are people in our midst today who inad-advertently or otherwise, consciously or unconsciously, seem to imagine that they themselves must assume the powers of the sheriffs and act as if the sheriffs had not some word in regard to the proceedings. All that we require today is simply a reaffirmation of the legal position in regard to the case which I intend to raise. No new legislation is required. I intend

to place before the House the facts in one case. Since I signed the Adjournment book in regard to this case, I have received the facts concerning three similar cases.
The case I wish to place before the House this morning is that of a stock man who was employed on a farm eight miles west of the City of Edinburgh. His name is James McBurnie, and on 17th May this year I received a report from that particular area. It said that approximately six weeks ago, an eviction took place at a particular farm. The circumstances surrounding the ejection were as follows: the farmer had given McBurnie, his farm servant, a week's notice. That does not concern us, because that is a matter for the trade union concerned. It is not our job to interfere in the relationship between employer and employee.
The report reveals that on the Saturday upon which the notice expired, McBurnie was away at Haddington, 40 miles off, in search of other employment. During McBurnie's absence, a new farm servant arrived at this particular farm. Shortly after noon the farmer was the instigator in having Mrs. McBurnie, who was an expectant mother, with her family of five young children and her mother, who had called to assist her, put upon the street. The bedding and furniture were put out in the rain, because it was raining very heavily.
In those conditions Mrs. McBurnie had two of her children in the pram, two other children were capable of walking and the fifth child was carried by the grandmother. The eldest of the five children was not much more than five years old. It was in the bitter wind and heavy rain that this pathetic party set off in the direction of Corstorphine, eight miles away, where it is believed relatives gave this family shelter.
I consider that that was an offence against the law, whether consciously or unconsciously I do not know. Since then I have received reports of one case in the Penicuik area. In this case a motor driver was employed by a firm of timber felling merchants working with the Forestry Commission, and he had a hut which belonged to his employer. Here we are told the man found an employer with better remuneration attached to the job, and unconscious of the fact that he occupied a tied cottage he left.
Shortly after he left that employment, representatives of the firm came with an official looking bunch of documents and impressed upon the man that he was in default of the law and he must get out of the house as another worker was coming to take his place, and the man said he was infringing the law. The employee said, "I have nowhere to go," and the representative of the firm said, "I will give you alternative accommodation. Here is a hut 10 feet by 8 feet. True there is no sanitation or water in it nevertheless, it is somewhere to go." The man with his wife and a daughter, aged 19, another aged 14 and a third aged 10, went into the hut, and those five people are today, by reason of that action, which I regard as sharp practice, a problem to the local authority, the Midlothian County Council, and chargeable for housing purposes.
Along with that we have two cases which make one wonder considerably at the facility with which the agricultural executive committee grants certificates for agricultural cottages. Curiously enough, the circumstances in each case are exactly the same. One concerns a lady of 81.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Will the hon. Member tell me in what way the Secretary of State for Scotland

has responsibility for these actions, which are apparently those of landlords?

Mr. Pryde: The position in regard these cases, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that today one of these cases has been tried in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court, and has been thrown out on the ground that it infringes Scottish law. I am asking that the Secretary of State for Scotland shall issue, through the columns of the Official Report, an intimation that in Scotland no tenant can be evicted, or have his goods and chattels put upon the street, except at the instance of an order enacted by the sheriff in the sheriff court.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gather that the hon. Member is asking that publicity should be given to the law in Scotland. Is that so?

Mr. Pryde: That is the position, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I want to put the cases of two ladies, 81 years old in my constituency. Each case is surrounded by similar circumstances. Each of these old ladies has, as the only other member of her household, one devoted daughter. Where is there any better virtue than in a daughter who devotes herself to the care of an aged mother? Both of these ladies are widows.
The farmers of the area go to the agricultural executive committee of their county—one in Midlothian, the other in Peeblesshire—and secure with the greatest ease certificates indicating agricultural cottages. In the area where I have lived for 61 years, the particular cottage never was used for agricultural purposes. 1 have traced the history of the Peebles cottage and found that the widow's husband built it so that he might practise his craft as a rural joiner, and that it never has been an agricultural cottage.
In the Midlothian case, because the old lady was able to appeal to the provost and magistrates of the borough, she was able to have her case defended in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court, and last Thursday the sheriff summarily dismissed the farmer's appeal that this was an agricultural cottage. Here we find exceptions to the rule, because generally speaking the farmers in Midlothian and Peebles are sound, charitable. Christian individuals. But it is the exception which proves the rule.
Andrew Dodds, who did more than anyone else to improve the conditions of farm servants in my constituency, wrote:
'twas God that made the ploughman,
Wi' clay, as can be seen
But the De'il he made the fermer,
Wi' stane frae Aberdeen.

3.35 a.m.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: I am very impressed by this very important point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde). It is tremendously important. I intervene only to ask for clarification by the Scottish Office of this particular point. Would it be too much to ask the Lord Advocate to give us a short reply about the state of the law in Scotland in regard to these cases? It seems to me, from listening to my hon. Friend, that there is some confusion among the agricultural workers as regards this particular case. It would be a most desirable thing if we could have the position clarified, even at this late hour. If not, then perhaps it might be done at some later stage; but it is an important issue.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are on a very thin line. As I understand it, in response to my inquiry, the Secretary of State for Scotland is being asked to take administrative action to inform those affected of the state of the law, but the hon. Member did not make that point in his speech. Now the hon. Member is asking about the state of the law. One cannot, by that pretext, urge administrative action to alter the law.

Mr. Robertson: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have not had an answer, and I was merely seeking an answer from the Lord Advocate.

3.37 a.m.

Mr. Hoy: What my hon. Friend was asking was not for an alteration in the law, but a clarification of it, and the Ministers on the Front Bench would, I think, be only too willing to lend their assistance in that matter. I rise to support the case put by my hon. Friend who opened the debate and who, as we all know, so admirably represents his constituency. When these depressing cases are raised, one would naturally expect some representative from the Scottish Tory Party to be present to pay some attention to things which are important

to our people in Scotland. There is one Tory Whip, who does not represent a Scottish constituency, and perhaps he should be specially commended for being present this morning. But there can be no excuse for the complete absence of all his hon. Friends.
The case made tonight is one which, I am sure, would have awakened the sympathy of hon. Members opposite had they found time to be present; it certainly has the sympathy of all hon. Members on this side of the House. It frequently happens, when one hears of cases of this type, that there is unnecessary trouble between the farmer and the farm worker, for it raises the greatest antipathy between employer and employee. It is indeed distressing that merely because some farmer wishes to make a change, a whole family should be turned out into the street.
It may be that the law gives this right, but I think that, in view of the cases mentioned—and especially the first which was quoted, although my hon. Friend was careful not to give the name of the farmer concerned—this is a serious matter. I hope that the Minister will at least look at this and give an assurance that it is possible under the law for action to be taken to prevent distressing instances of this kind from happening in Scotland in the future.

3.40 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): First of all, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) for very kindly furnishing me with an outline of the case that he intended to make this evening and giving me, to assist me in my researches, the names of the four families whom he has mentioned. I am, nevertheless, in a difficulty in replying to the debate for the reasons that you suggested, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, during the speeches made so far.
There was no action which my right hon. Friend could have taken to protect either of the first two families my hon. Friend mentioned; but if it is of any assistance I say quite categorically that there is no farmer or any other owner of tenanted property in Scotland who has the right to turn the tenant, the occupant of the house, into the street with his goods


and chattels without an order from the court; and even so he has to get some assistance in doing it. It would seem, therefore, that these two families have been treated quite improperly and quite contrary to the provisions of the statutes. Having said that, I must repeat that there was no action that lay with my right hon. Friend to deal with the persons concerned in these two cases.
The other two cases concern families occupying tenanted property, who enjoy the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Recently the farmers or owners of the farms acquired the cottages, and to get possession of them for the purpose of accommodating agricultural workers they were entitled, under the statutes, to make use of the certificate procedure; that is to say, they could apply to the agricultural executive committees for certificates certifying that the cottages were required for workers who were needed for the better working of the agricultural holdings. Having got such a certificate the farmer could go to the sheriff court, armed with that certificate, because when he does that he normally finds it is much more easy to convince the sheriff of the desirability of issuing an order in favour of the eviction of the present occupant of the house.
In the first of the last two cases mentioned by my hon. Friend, which he said had been to the Sheriff Court in Edinburgh quite recently, I understand the farmer had not made any application to the agricultural executive committee for a certificate, but he went to the court and failed in his application to get an eviction order against the tenant. So that tenant, for the present at least, is quite secure in the tenancy of her house; and she cannot be turned out by the owner of the house. In the last case, which is subject to the certificate procedure, the owner applied to the agricultural executive committee for a certificate, and when an investigation had been made the agricultural executive committee decided to issue a certificate, and a certificate was issued. But, as I understand it, the farmer or his agents of the farmer have not taken the next step as yet; they have not gone to the sheriff court to have this old lady of 81 evicted from her cottage.
So, so far as I am aware, these two people, who enjoy the protection, such

as it is, of the certificate procedure as tenants of controlled property, are still in occupation of their houses. If the time should come when the further processes of law would be invoked by the owners of the houses, I doubt whether there is any action my right hon. Friend could take to protect them. I think my hon. Friend takes the view that since the agricultural executive committees are the agents of the Secretary of State, anything they do must be done in his name, and that if they are making improper use of the certificate procedure or issuing certificates too readily, then the fault must lie inevitably and ultimately with my right hon. Friend.
The power to issue these certificates was delegated to the agricultural executive committees under Section 69 of the 1948 Act and when the instructions were sent out to them as to procedure, this advice was given:
It must be borne in mind and impressed on applicants and other parties concerned that certificates do not take the place or have the effect of a decree of possession or ejectment. This can only be granted by the sheriff on a formal petition by the applicant. The certificate is designed to assist the sheriff to decide whether or not the decree should be granted. … In considering applications, regard may be had only to the agricultural needs and merits of the case, i.e., whether the person for whom possession of the house is desired is employed or, conditional on possession of the house being obtained, is to he employed whole-time on work necessary for the proper working of the holding.
That is the essential part of the notes. These are the conditions which initially have to be fulfilled before a certificate is granted.
I wish to assure my hon. Friend and the House that the executive committees do not issue these certificates willy-nilly when application is made for them. I have checked up and I find that since November, 1948, when delegation was first made to the agricultural executive committees, to 30th June, 1951, some 223 applications were received. Five of those were withdrawn and 40 were refused, and 174 of the remainder have been granted.
I suggest that this indicates that the committees are doing their job because, in nine cases out of ten, there will be an agricultural need for the house before the farmer will apply for a certificate to get possession because the farmer will normally be seeking to put another


worker into a house normally occupied by one of his workers. Notwithstanding those normal conditions, we find that out of 223 applications, 40 cases were refused, five withdrawn—presumably, for the reason that the owner discovered that the case for the issue of the certificate did not exist.
One sometimes finds after farmers have applied for a certificate, that they merely want possession of the house so that they can invite applications for a job, with the likelihood of a more ready response because they have a vacant cottage. But they are not able to get a certificate and vacant possession of a house before they advertise for a worker. He must either be in employment, or on contract ready to take up employment, before a certificate is given in respect of that property.

Mr. Hubbard: Would the executive committee issue a certificate in the case of a house which belonged to someone who had built it?

What would happen in those circumstances?

Mr. Fraser: The case which my hon. Friend has referred to is a difficult one to understand, in as much as the grandfather of the existing tenant built the house in, I think, 1832. But at some more recent date the house passed from that family into the possession of the farmer, the owner of the land upon which it stands; and so the farmer now has the freedom to apply for a certificate. Although one cannot discuss legislation during an Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend is aware, I am sure, that an announcement was made the other day that action would be taken in the not very distant future to bring an end to the certificate procedure.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes to Four o'Clock a.m.